When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department you see criminals.

Our corruption dates back decades to when those who in trying to preserve slavery had to find new ways to preserve it and so created an advanced form of slavery.

only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom and choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.

How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.

our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.

In America the population has been transformed in two major voting groups but they only have one choice.

They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.

Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.

Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans themselves are realizing that they cannot sustain themselves under their current system of government.

Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??

Occupy Washington and demand that all government officials resign their posts.

We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.

One of the best responses I have seen here. Love to get back to a pre-industrial age in some ways, having nature around you or sharing land is the only way to live. We were tribes and groups of people for most of our heritage. Nations as a concept came rather late and a lot of groups kept their identity much longer than we suppose. Back in Europe anyway but also Asia, African, everywhere.

it's diabolical the sickness and pain the supposed leaders of this corp owned company i mean country have inflicted on other countries and other people. lies, wars, killings, destruction, torture, and on and on. who speaks for these people. all this nightmare for what, so there can be more profit and false feeling of control. enough lies, enough fake war on terror, enough us and them, enough fabricating a bad guy, enough abuse to us people and mother nature. our world, provided to us by our creator, is for all of us together, not for only the 1% nor for only the 99%, but 100%, and we're not gonna stand for this any more.

Denial is strong and "redneck" reaction is usually out of lack of knowledge or through deliberate disregard of others and ultimately their own family's future.

How the American people have been mindwashed but just look who owns the media, film industry as well as controlling the banks and politicians. They have done quite a thorough job turning people against rehabilitating our way of living.

Sustainable has become ridiculed, green a dirty word, and commie used for anyone who disagrees with being robbed by the pirates who are running the show. Fear of the unknown has been amplified and deeply entrenched .

The future is scary if left in the hands of 1% who are driven by a 0.05% psychopathic megalomaniacs.

If you can't see how this can happen then start putting together a reasoned argument why it won't happen.

The USA is the most militarily aggressive force mankind has ever seen.

Geneva convention is ignored routinely. Laws of countries ignored and civilians killed in million during recent years and little reported in the news media about it.

The global campaign for oil by invasion is already underway. Iran is next judging by the massaging of the public space with press released - propaganda for the 1% criminal intentions using the US taxes and able bodies from the the 99% to murder on a massive scale and loot.

There has to be a better way to survival. It has to be on a basis of planning and cooperation to make any sense. The destruction and waste only limits what is left for the future generation. The planet is finite. The planet is finite and we need to manage it with care for our children's children's.....................children.

Intelligence and human dignity has to overcome these brutal moves from the 1%. They will not reform as the core of them have had several generations of tight family grooming, while building their corrupt empire of plunder and ruthless subjugation of their fellow humans.

Our constitution is not well based as it has been bent to become a tool allowing the present Oligarchy to strangle any hope for change. The constitution was written by a privileged group and has cleverly protected their interests and not the common interest.

That link to dieoff.org has misleading information. The human imagination (empowered by tools, education, health, and community) is the ultimate resource. While economist Julian Simon ignores externalities and egalitarianism, he has a lot of good stuff to say about the power of human creativity: http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

There are lots of other technological options, too, including eventually space habitats that could support trillions of people living around the solar system. So even the notion of a finite Earth limiting human population growth is flawed.

The only issue is whether we continue to invest in creating new alternatives and putting in place existing ones. But many of these solutions are more decentralized, and that makes it harder for the 1% to get most of the wealth from them, and so these solutions are resisted (so we get subsidies for more oil drilling, "clean" coal, more mainstream nuclear, and so on).

Also, "War is a racket" http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm so the USA is putting about a trillion dollars or more a year into creating technological systems we hope we never really use instead of creating technological systems we want to use so we don't have to worry about war. Ironically, we create nuclear missiles to fight over oil fields, instead of using the same sorts of technology to create alternative energy systems so we don't have to fight over oil fields. Even just one half of one year's US defense budget could make the USA energy independent through home insulation, more efficient appliances, and putting in place renewable energy. That is very ironic. It would be funny if it was not so harmful.

But we seem to be passing some sort of tipping point where the solutions have gotten so good that they seem inevitable at this point, even without fossil fuels and mainstream nuclear being required to pay their true costs up front (for pollution, disease, defense, and risk).

Anyway, a site like dieoff.org may mean well, but it mainly feeds fear, and that tends to disempower people, making people more easy prey for the 1% and more likely to turn to conflict for solutions for fighting over scarcity -- which then becomes ironic because they will do that fighting with the advanced technologies like advanced materials, nanotech, biotech, robotics, AI, and nuclear processes that could produce universal abundance. We truly need "A New Way Of Thinking": http://www.anwot.org/

I agree dieoff.org has some extreme and unsupported lines of discussion which a discerning mind can identify and grapple with. Possibly the group running the website are stating opposition to the mainstream "business as usual" absolutely untenable position. The shock effect is used by both sides of the argument and that is sadly what happens when adversarial positions are taken up.

Fear appears to be a tool deliberately used to justify war, implementation of draconian laws restricting freedom and to demonize free speech. Fear has been traditionally used to control defined moral codes and beliefs.

How do we get around this.

One has to be wary with information from any source. Reading and researching all sides of an issue is time consuming but without background clarifying issues and sifting the irrelevant from the pertinent is unlikely.

Amid the many possibilities for production of energy you have mentioned. at this stage only a few seem to be feasibility looking at the broader scale of resource needed for development and implementation. The future is likely to encompass greater application of energy dependent technologies globally. The problem expands.

Finding answers to problems we have created with ignorance and disregard of the environment have to be costed in terms of energy. Depleted soil all over the world though used of fertilizers need time and bio management. Quick fixed that are energy intensive can only be limited in application if affordable at all. We come back to the energy supply balance. Destruction is costly not only in terms of energy dependent technologies for possible remediation assistance but also in terms of time and disruption of community sustainability. Recycling is fundamental to conservation once exploitation of a resource is employed. Growing demand can also use up "savings" through recycling so resources are finite and planned management of them must include reduction in demand.

Time seems to be running fast and progress is impeded by the 1% control of centralized but privately owned large systems of energy harvesting and distribution, racking in the dollars as you have mentioned.

Continued demolition of our natural world for "progress" is ludicrous and not only unnecessary but likely to be terminal for our future generations. That is not something that involves fear but more common sense. We don't understand enough about the feedback systems and inter-dependencies within the biosphere. Market forces are ignorant dog eat dog consumers of all.

Power generated locally with small scale contributors is so much more flexible, sustainable of dwindling resources and empowering for communities. The efficiency of generation close to consumption, is a significant factor for line losses which helps lower the need for massive grid monopolization and copper / aluminum supply. Unreliable supply has been a predicted outcome of our present energy harvesting and distribution. Local supply gives local control.

Time and use of resources are the limiting elements to change once the 1% embargo on such a shift is bypassed.

Some doubt as to whether the "magic" answers, as yet just undeveloped ideas. to providing energy of the future beyond oil coal and nuclear; can be held as a reason to blindly carry on the way we are in spite of limits to everything being finite.

Many resources, such as metals for example, have now been identified in terms of their likely total harvest together with the likely growing energy needs to make that harvest. So we have a situation where it becomes more energy expensive to develop alternative energy sources later that if they were developed now. Meanwhile the demand for power and energy is not being curbed but is growing albeit a little less than exponentially. Some curbing has occurred with the growing cost.

Some of the descriptions of "good new" energy concepts such as clean coal don't stack up when looking at use of resources. One time use of a resource to harvest energy usually involved conventional processes that produce CO2. Economics of dealing with this waste is a further energy use consideration. Some schemes mooted such as deep ocean sequestration of CO2 are theoretical and and rely on very high energy pricing to drive them. Environmental footprints look high in the models. Such ideas give the public hope to cling to perhaps but independent opinion ( non oil or coal associated ) does not run with it.

The hundreds of millions of years time frame with nature sequestering carbon in the crust is undone with oil and coal conversion to waste products to release the stored energy from the sun. The economies of 150 odd years ago saw this as valid but now we know of the accumulated damage to the biosphere. We have yet to suffer the consequences or even know the extent of what will develop. A guessing game of gambling for increments excess for a few, with future humans and other species bearing costs.

Just seeing an answer providing for the long term secure management of the massive international stock pile of nuclear waste, most of which is still held in the cooling tanks of nuclear facilities would be a start. The relatively small accident in Japan recently bears reading about. Generational legacy of damage is unfolding.

Direct capture of the radiant energy we get from the sun, even using current high and low tech methods, has a smaller footprint regarding use of dwindling mineral resources and likely to produce a much smaller legacy of biosphere damage. This area of development is feasible and being promulgated especially in China where the Govt has taken direct responsibility to foster development through series of business models. Where is the 1% govt action here?

It is the energy equation that limits which development idea may become tenable for exploratory development in better energy supply. Ideas alone are a starting point but they can also be used as a cornucopian case for a secured future without changing our method of operation. A false security.

Although unpalatable the problem is demand not supply. The way the economy is structured and the wealth distribution is managed, we see negative effects of demand being lowered. Unemployment, business default, infrastructural decay and consequently social unrest, all happen coincidentally with falling demand.

This is a structural problem with our economy. That can be and needs to be fixed so that demand can be managed downwards with positive outcomes immediately and for the future. The 1% have manipulated the system present, stand to loose so will fight any such rationalization.

War is a dumb idea for the majority, except for the coffers of the bankers, munitions industry and looters. The public are sold lies. The first casualty in war is truth and that has been well known and recorded for as long as records have existed.

An educated public is our best defense.

Some parts of Education have been heavily influenced by the 1% "sponsoring" university chairs and research. The dollar influences the curriculum, and content is channeled. Economics is a good example where the mainstream economics is deeply flawed in several respects including its basic foundation. There are many critics of how modern teaching of economics is a blind for propagation of our ponzi economic framework.

Zero growth has to be the benchmark together with a sustainable long term plan and equity tenable for all levels of society. It seems the society end of the economy has been forgotten.

Fear does dis-empower but identifying what we need to be afraid of changes irrational fear to a plan of personal and wider group action. Free speech allows the sharing of ideas.

Relationships, family, humour and fulfillment are the stuff of life for everybody lucky enough to enjoy them. That has to be a goal for now and times ahead.

Still, we really don't have many serious resource shortages that we can't deal with. Helium is a big upcoming problem, but hardly anyone is talking about it, although in the worst case, we can still chill it out of the air expensively. Pretty much everything else can be substituted for. Even fresh water can be chilled out of the air) or we can stop some profligate activities (meat production, which overall is killing us anyway) via pricing. http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

I have yet to hear of any resource that we can't work around somehow. Where does metal go after it is mined? It is still around. Recently, our automotive industry has been a net producer of metal as people downsize to small cars and the bigger ones get recycled. The Earth is huge. And there is a lot one can just do with the common substances of CO2, Water, and silicon/sand.

What resources are you really worried about? Be specific. And if you look at it specifically, probably there is some way to substitute for it or some innovation or to recycle, or some way to do something else to meet the need it meets.

I do think the damage to the biosphere is a moral offense, including the decimation of fish stocks, and that also impacts human health, but it is not a direct threat to our global society if we shared the burden of remediation (even if local problems could otherwise cause serious wars).

When solar is cheaper than coal in a widespread way in a few years, everything is going to have to switch to it (or other equally good things like if cold fusion were happening by then) just for market reasons. That issue will just solve itself at that point due to market forces. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

When it costs less to put in solar than to burn coal in existing plants, people will put in solar (although that would happen if the true cost of coal power had to be paid up front).

The true cost of coal was talked about for a long time; see this from 1993: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/the-true-cost-of-coal/4566/ "But under any external-cost scenario, coal's price advantage erodes. Natural gas becomes a more cost-efficient generating fuel, since it emits less sulfur. More important, renewable resources like geothermal energy, wind, and solar energy, at five to twelve cents per kilowatt--hour, suddenly become competitive, because they carry few or none of the external costs associated with coal."

Or, more recently: http://www.desmogblog.com/true-cost-coal-half-trillion-dollars-year "Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public."

Solar thermal power has long been cheaper than that. As has energy efficiency.

The fact that coal has not been priced properly is a vast failing of the market, and shows why what most mainstream economists and most pro-market pro-deregulation advocates is spouting is nonsense. Even if there was not also this clip: "Greenspan Destroys Deregulation in 16 Seconds" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY

Much of what you have outlined in reply covers a reasonably short term senario and we have to attend to that as a vacuum cant exist without chaos.

Although I have covered this before elsewhere the mineral resources were surveyed, the in the 1960s and that has been updated regularly since. A search will find information on how many years left at present rate of usage for most minerals.

The air is a little different as we are seeing changes, in our rate of polluting the atmosphere which has risen exponentially over the last 150 - 200 years . The sea interacted with the atmosphere and sinks some of the CO2 rise causing it to become acidic. The sea is warmer. This in turn has consequences.

Man's population has also increased exponentially coincident with the industrial revolution and the exploitation of coal then oil. This cycle of population expansion and energy consumption has been incremental for each generation so the radical change ofthe environment and effect on resources is not appreciated by large sections of the world's communities.

The simple energy consumption of man is about 3000 calories a day . The US population uses about SEVENTY times that today.

The bigger picture longer term get murkier as we seek ways to keep up this inflated and unnecessary consumption.

To get some appreciation of what this all means then I suggest reading the 1972 publication "Limits to Growth" showing the detailed analysis undertaken by MIT of world trends in resource use and mankind's "progress.

Beware that the report was soundly rubbished by the corporate world, with many untruths and lies spread about it. So if you can't get a copy then bear in mind the warning when searching on the net.

That LTG report has been revisited many times by various research bodies.

The last published review was done in 2008 by the Australian CSIRO. a leading scientific authority.

Through out the near 40 years since LTG was released the trends outlined have been remarkably accurate and forecasts very close to actually what has happened. Man has been predictable it would seem.

Over shoot will correct. Populations will reduce but damage to the biosphere will take a long time to partially repair with many millions of years of aggregation of mineral deposits probably needing a like time. In other word if you stuff it up no one is going to fix it.

2030 to 2050 period is right on track for overshoot in many aspects of man's activity to suffer a massive correction.

Even when the modeling doubled energy and resources it made little difference.

So while the glimpses of suggested new technologies are clung to in hope, allowances made for such in the model surprisingly made little difference.

As food. non food energy, metals , chemicals, become harder and harder to obtain or cost more and more energy to obtain, then the scale of production of new energy technologies will not be possible to meet the present day usage.

I don't have the time to find you links at the moment but perhaps on later postings.

We may not have to wait too long to see the existing cracks widen and OWS is happening for many good reasons.

When systems we rely on just crash then a chain reaction is on the cards.

Tinkering with the finance system will do little but may cushion some changes temporarily..

They cannot fix overshoot.

Where progress can be made is with mankind learning how to take hold of our direction and plan for down sizing and lowering energy and resource use.

Because of the expansion of population , consumerism and wastage there is less left for the future generations so reducing their potential population size.

It is simple housekeeping. Spend it now or have it for later. There is no environmental credit card.

"Overshoot" is relative to carrying capacity; carrying capacity is relative to our culture (demands) and our technology (what we can produce from what is around). Neither culture or technology is a fixed thing, thus the issue is much more complex than gloomsters like Catton (who wrote a book with that title) would have one believe.

The problem with the otherwise excellent Club of Rome report is that while it is true problems can grow exponentially, it is also true that solutions can grow exponentially, too.

So, for example, we have been seeing the exponential growth of PV solar for the past few decades, and, by that exponential trend, by 2030 our society will be all solar (or it would be unless even better solutions are adopted, too). So, that is why the Club or Rome report and people like Catton are wrong.

The large population uses its imagination to make new ideas, so there is more for the future in that sense.

You are just not being specific enough in terms of what resources. Name a specific resource you think is a problem in the future (aluminum?), and the need it is used to meet, and I will probably be able to point out some alternative or show how we are not really facing a shortage of it relative to our likely needs.

There is no reason our technology needs to be polluting. The pollution is just a byproduct of lack of regulation to manage externalities and allowing polluters to profit by their (what should be) crimes. Here is a NIST program to help people move to zero emissions manufacturing:
http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/lifecycle/sustainable_mfg.cfm

Instead of 20 staff members, that program just needs 20,000 -- or even 20 million. Why not -- we have the unemployed globally to have that many people working on the issue.

Fine deryk
Still the point I was making is not really appreciated as I perhaps have not provided detailed evidence - which would be almost impossible in a post.

The study of this area is multi disciplined hence a raft of scientists and scientific organisations, collaborating toward the best analysis feasible, is not a small project nor has similar undertakings been as independent, and as well referenced as the LTG and reviews since.

It is held as the hallmark of consciousness for human direction.

PV production is increasing and so is the use of resources. Indium of example used in thin film PV, LCD TVs etc is very difficult to recycle or even collect from old equipment. We have very small exploitable reserves left which may see us through 5 years at present rate of use. The price is rising and starting to inhibit its use. Do we use indium for LCD TVs or PV thin film.

If confined to thin film PV then our supply will last a little longer but the price rise will truncate production. The reason thin film PV was held as a great hope was its low cost. This is just one barrier to PV proliferation.

The market is not an efficient manager of resources. No person or authority is in control or resource use.

If organisation of global labor was possible then so would reorganization of our direction. Many things work against that. The market and profit in a dog eat dog regime wastes resources, energy, opportunity for intelligent direction and human welfare. That is much of what determines our future .

The result of machinery doing our work is a case for reorganization of labor. Instead of that we have seen reorganization of wealth distribution.

Advertising is defended on many ground but its function is to increase demand.

If we want to address our problem then that and many other damaging market driven activities cannot be ignore. and left untouched.

Banking and the financial sector in its present form is a driver of "growth" holding us to ransom. There is so much written about this but nothing changes, it seems to get worse and must. So much destruction in linked with this mantra of growth. It works for the 1% short term although it must crash.

Over shoot is a term used to describe the exceeding of parameters that are capable of steady state renewal. We have overshot across a multitude of aspects, not only population.

The model run at MIT combining resources to analyze , use of natural resources . population, food. land use, energy use, available technology, prospective technology; and in depth analysis of options paths for the future; is very clear in the conclusions drawn.

Changes in data doubling and trebling etc various resources, similarly changing of usage and many other variation used to explore a way forward; change of population size and growth, disease rate and wealth distribution; explored many scenarios.

The conclusion that have since held firm and has been thoroughly reviewed many times. The dire prospects ahead can only be mitigated by changing a raft of aspects associated with environmental impact. Perhaps we may push the impending crash further out with just some changes in our environmental impact.

Present energy source replacement is an interesting aspect. To make replacement for oil and coal at present rates of use ( and world wide the demand is expanding rapidly mainly due to new technologies applied ) the analysis does not produce a path. Resource and energy requirements needed to make the shift are not there.

It appears that there could be a window of hope if we reduce our energy demand and drastically scale down our mineral resource use, and stop using fossil fuel at the present rate, slashing CO2 production and phasing out fossil fuel energy harvesting. It is pretty much a non negotiable senario.

On top of that population reduction must happen either by planned reduction of other means.

All the promises of technological solutions may give rays of hope to lean on while ignoring the fundamental message, but in the end there is no seat belt.

MIT, CSIRO are not organizations that play politics, carry concern about markets, respond to pressure from energy companies or Wall Street; but are focused on the science and statistical evidence.

My brief above does not do the science credit. Reading the report and later reviews will open understanding for most. It is not a bible to believe in but gives a wide perspective on the state of the planet and human kind.

Finally a lot of information not available in 1972 has come to light and been used in later reviews of the LTG findings. Technology has not produced mitigating trends in nearly 40 years. The later data actually shows worst abuse of the biosphere than that previously known.

Reducing energy and resource use is fundamental. Population reduction and negative pollution production.

Again there are some groups of people that live sustainably. Modern technology introduced into their lives tends to destabilize their neutral impact.

We need to learn.

There is a path to retain some of the helpful developments but at present the market rules.

Again, you are talking in abstractions. I give you specific reasons for hope (like the exponential growth of solar energy which will happen in the next twenty years purely from marketplace forces -- unless something even better comes along -- citing specific vendors and technology , or point to a way to remineralize soils by grinding up rock to keep them fertile). And you just cited the same gloomster reports that I'm saying are fundamentally flawed as they ignore the fact that the human imagination (from all the billions of people out there) is responding to the problems and can produce solutions that grow exponentially too.

Be specific. What are the specific resources you think are or will be in short supply in terms of meeting some specific need and why? How certain are you that there is not possibility of replacement? I've pointed to how energy and agriculture are adequate for our needs. What else are you worried about? Metals that can be endlessly recycled?

And also, as far as talking about human population reduction, if there is room for trillions of people in cities in space built for space resources, why would there need to be any call to reduce human populations? Town on Earth get crowded and people move elsewhere rather than call for the town to have its fertility reduced. If the Earth gets crowded, why not help people move into space habitats? There is value in sustainability, but there is also value in survival with style with flourishing and growth (when reasonable and not causing the sacrifice of other people and the biosphere). See for one set of ideas: http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

There was a time, like in the 1970s, when people still knew how to dream big. Maybe some of those dreams were problematical, but not all of them.

Industrial populations are all likely going to fall anyway because of less than replacement rates of birth in pretty much all industrialized countries. We really have a "peak population" crisis more than anything, and it is affecting things like the socioeconomics of social security and retirement plans (with less young people to pay into plans).

But China does not have to be that way. We know how to prevent that pollution. They are not preventing that pollution because of messed up economics and lack of regulation, and what may be seen as criminal negligence on the part of Western companies not insisting on green production methods for products for sale in the USA. We do the same processes in the USA but with much less pollution.

There are many different technologies we have to choose from. We don't have to choose polluting ways. We don't have to go backwards. See also: http://www.viridiandesign.org/ "Another major change came through my consumption habits. It pains me to see certain people still trying to live in hairshirt-green fashion – purportedly mindful, and thrifty and modest. I used to tolerate this eccentricity, but now that panicked bankers and venture capitalists are also trying to cling like leeches to every last shred of their wealth, I can finally see it as actively pernicious. Hairshirt-green is the simple-minded inverse of 20th-century consumerism. Like the New Age mystic echo of Judaeo-Christianity, hairshirt-green simply changes the polarity of the dominant culture, without truly challenging it in any effective way. It doesn't do or say anything conceptually novel – nor is it practical, or a working path to a better life. ... You will be told that you should "make do" with broken or semi-broken tools, devices and appliances. Unless you are in prison or genuinely crushed by poverty, do not do this. This advice is wicked. This material culture of today is not sustainable. Most of the things you own are almost certainly made to 20th century standards, which are very bad. If we stick with the malignant possessions we already have, through some hairshirt notion of thrift, then we are going to be baling seawater. This will not do. You should be planning, expecting, desiring to live among material surroundings created, manufactured, distributed, through radically different methods from today's. It is your moral duty to aid this transformative process. This means you should encourage the best industrial design. Get excellent tools and appliances. Not a hundred bad, cheap, easy ones. Get the genuinely good ones. Work at it. Pay some attention here, do not neglect the issue by imagining yourself to be serenely "non-materialistic." There is nothing more "materialistic" than doing the same household job five times because your tools suck. Do not allow yourself to be trapped in time-sucking black holes of mechanical dysfunction. That is not civilized."

To every pillar not yet built, an aspiration of reaching into the Heavens.

To every pillar built, a shadow stretched by dusk.

OWS is indeed a start, but what shadow will it cast?

Why do we perceive this as something to spawn revolution in a country of controlled citizens, to whom the OWS is a hope for some small changes? The "People" don't want to overthrow their government. This isn't a matter of convincing them, not so directly, swiftly, extremely.

But I hope for great things from the OWS. I hope that it plants the seed in people's minds, that something is desperately amiss, and perhaps the two-party system is failing, and perhaps the American Dream has come to a turbulent waking. The "perhaps" is what the People need.

I voted for Obama in 2008, and I'll vote Republican in 2012. Why? Because single term failures are what this country needs. Memory isn't the strongpoint of the People, and the People need to experience, in a span of 12 years, Bush, Obama and WhoCaresWho in quick succession. A double-barrel blast of two-party suck-ass, to put it bluntly.

Will a third party change anything? Probably not. But breaking the two-party system is important; it tells the People that positive change is possible, that voting for Option C, the vote that no media outlet wants you to pick, is actually viable. That there's actually a choice.

You want complete demilitarization, a return to nature, and resolution to the various enemies who will not forgive the new People the sins of the old USA? I would ask you to wait until beyond your lifetime, because if we're good enough to get it done, we still won't live to see it happen.

If you can truly sit well with that fact, if you can accept that the world will be better for future generations but not for you, and can still hold your sign up as boldly and proudly as you do now, then you are truly what this country needs.

If you can't, well... there's another group of people who lived for themselves and damned the future generations. You're all rather familiar with them, in fact, and know them inside and out. Adaptation won't be necessary; you're already in the room, just wearing a funny hat.

Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."

The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.

The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!

War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq."

Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts for yourself?"

And that site continues to outline the oil grab.

Iraq nationalised its oil in 1972 so profits were controlled by Iraq.

After US invasion, take over of the running of the infrastructure and privatizing for the 1%, setting up of a puppet Govt then oil service fees were set and the largest oilfield in the middle east was auctioned off. Russia and China surprised all by doing well in getting some of the spoils from US UK seizure of Iraqi sovereignty through unprovoked warfare for profit. Just note the trillions paid by US taxpayers for this ruthless adventuring for the 1%.

"Dick Cheney's "consolation prize" was an Exxon-Mobil-Shell alliance getting the phase 1 of West Qurna in early November. Exxon-Mobil had been the favorite to also win Rumaila (17.8 billion barrels of reserves). But a BP-CNPC (China National Petroleum Corporation) alliance got it in the end because unlike Exxon-Mobil they agreed to cut their fee per barrel down to the Oil Ministry-enforced $2. "

It continues on with detail.

So US companies now have access directly to Iraqi oil through warfare.

Iraq did not invite the US oil giants (part of the 1% ) in.

I stand by the words "Seized effectively" and hope that helps explain.

That was a direct quote in the article. I am sure a little research will find your answer to any depth you any wish to follow. The Bush family have had involvement with oil, Saudi families including the Bin Ladens , various oil companies, some were fronts, while the true level of involvement is out of the public eye. Do your research.

The quote that you rely on in an attempt to prove your point says "Bush has huge personal investments in the oil industry". The word "has" is present tense, meaning the here and now. Yes, the Bushes have been in the energy business. A lot of people have, and are. But to say Bush profited by having "huge personal investments in the oil industry" is not true. Presidents either liquidate holdings upon election, or place them in a blind trust. For example, Chaney sold EVERY share of Halliburton prior to taking office, so the war to help Halliburton profit was always a huge canard.

What happened here is that you read a well crafted, scholarly looking bunch of garbage, and you believed it. That's what happened.

I have totally discredited your source by showing that his statements about Bush are totally false.

If you are happy then fine. I have attempted to answer your questions in time available. If you have issue with the links then I am sure you can find your own . There are hundred covering the information I have given.

I would ask you the questions in return

Do you believe Bush had no interest nor was associated with an interest in oil at the time he launched an attack on Iraq.

You would have to define "interest". I assume you mean personal financial interest. If you are asking if Bush started a war so that he could gain financially on a personal basis, then the answer is an emphatic no.

The reason as the world wide believe that Hussein held WMD and was sufficiently unstable that he was a threat to use them against us or our allies, or against his own people, as he had in the past. He was bluffing about the WMD, most likely to improve his position in the Middle East, but every western intelligence agency was on board. He was carrying out resolutions of the UN. Funny how you make it out that it was just Bush, or a few Republicans that started the war.

I have no wish to cover what is widely canvassed already about the both Iraq invasions and motives.

Your rationale explains why you have argued close to the official line. I take from your comments that democrats vs GOP is an argument, but certainly one I will not enter into. Both groups suffer with the same problem.

Growth for wealth of a few in a finite world with expanding poverty is a road to nowhere. There are much bigger perspectives than being locked into party politics.

OWS is unlikely to go away and change will happen. Not because any one says so nor because of arguments put one way or the other.

World resources are finite. Expansion is not without end. Overshoot produces collapse. Our money system must have growth because it is a ponzi scheme.
The inevitable will be very messy unless some intelligent cooperative planing is brought about. There seems little hope of that.

It is a world wide situation as globalization limits insulation.

Denial is widespread but won't make a scrap of difference to the end of the game.

"Chaney sold EVERY share of Halliburton prior to taking office, so the war to help Halliburton profit was always a huge canard." This is a false statement - see below. You are diverting the topic from obvious issues.

But still they profited from the campaign - here's another 'source' about Cheney and Haliburton - stock options are there for the holder when the dust settles and therefore, Cheney absolutely had a vested interested in seeing these wars continue. The accusations are just and the insider corruption just as slimy - it's called capitalist cronism/government run
Vice President Dick Cheney’s stock options in Halliburton rose from $241,498 in 2004 to over $8 million in 2005, an increase of more than 3,000 percent, as Halliburton continues to rake in billions of dollars from no-bid/no-audit government contracts.

An analysis released by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) reveals that as Halliburton’s fortunes rise, so do the Vice President’s. Halliburton has already taken more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney administration for work in Iraq. They were also awarded many of the unaccountable post-Katrina government contracts, as off-shore subsidiaries of Halliburton quietly worked around U.S. sanctions to conduct very questionable business with Iran (See Story #2). “It is unseemly,” notes Lautenberg, “for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”

The issue is now Americans 'know the game' of manipulation by the powerful - the gigs up. You're the one that is ridiculous because you refuse to see truth amongst all the propaganda you've been fed since day 1

"Mr. Cheney’s financial disclosure statements from 2001, 2002 and 2003 show that since becoming vice president-elect, he has received $1,997,525 from the company: $1,451,398 in a bonus deferred from 1999, the rest in deferred salary. He also holds options to buy Halliburton stock. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/national/28fact.html

And if you're predictable you're going to dismiss these facts as 'liberal' because it comes from the 'liberal media' - give me a break-

The basic facts are that you can't offer anything 'new' because you refuse to understand the 'truth' - it's called cognitive dissonance - I actually 'think' for myself - you, obviously, can not as you believe your 'propaganda as facts' no matter when the truth stares you in the face.

What do you mean by taking away the right to live off the land. I have seen that written a number of times. That makes no sense. There is a lot of cheap land. Go buy yourself a few acres and let those chickens roam.

Land is tied up by the 1% in many countries and this is an increasing trend. The dream of owning your own bit of dirt is fading fast for a growing proportion of the public. Corporate land is expanding.

Environmental regulations meant to protect the land are being used by corrupt corporates to move people off the land.

Happening in the states, too. Colorado, you cant catch and store rain on your property, i think, and water rights are being scooped up by some rich guy out west somewhere. Sorry, im tired and dont feel like searching for sources....

I believe you're referring to the patron saint of my university, T. Boone Pickens. He has been and continues to buy up underground aquifer water (and mineral) rights across the Texoma region in anticipation of a soon-coming water crisis.

Obviously you can read, so it seems you elected to just ignore the end of my post so you could take an opportunity to be a big stinking ass. You could have simply asked for more information, so does it make you feel gleeful to be nasty? Do your own research, mr nobody.

I'm not going to be held responsible for what may, or may not have happened in an isolated case in another country. "Land is tied up bye the 1%"? What is meant by that? That they own it? What's wrong with owning land? Why do you say the dream of owning some land is fading fast? Due to the bursting of the real estate bubble, real estate is far cheaper than it was ten years ago. And your statement that air could be a good revenue stream is nothing more than a whiny rant on your part. Did saying something preposterous as if it was true make you feel better? What a strange way to live.

Speculation on land is common where land is bought up restricting availability, forcing the price up for the end user. which a often a family wanting to have a home. Developers often are very well healed or backed by banks to monopolize availability of housing also. Collusion with local bodies officials also is common cutting the small time builder or home builder out of the picture.

This sort of ruthless disregard for families is despicable but some see it as legitimate opportunity. That sort of system is not good for the welfare of our country. It is not universally allowed but very common in the US.

If we look at older communities in Europe such a Switzerland you will not find young families owning a home. Most houses are owned by Wealthy land owners with large property portfolios, corporations or nobility estates. A small minority of families live in houses that have been in their family for generations.

Buying a house is just a dream for and average salaried couple. The prices are just too high.
Centuries of housing being treated as a commodity to profit by has taken its toll on the average family ever owing a home.

On top of that to rent a house or apartment a Swiss couple have to have extensive references and pay bonds worth months of rent in some places, as well as sign a contract which includes finding an acceptable replacement tenant when leaving or the bond is lost. Further more the tenant leaving can be sued.

Sure that is not the USA yet, but housing costs were very high and will rise again. Present low cost is a dip caused by gambling bankers who pushed up prices with unrealistic mortgages, sold these mortages of as derivatives ( toxic ) and the new owners of those derivatives and also the owners of the houses lost big time. There is no protection in the system for the small time family.

Where bankers held derivatives as a result of their gambling, crippling bailouts came out of taxes to pay them, but home owners lost their deposits and all the payments they had made and their homes in massive numbers. Owning a home will forever be a sad dream for many of those people.

US land ownership trends

"While sizeable numbers of households own no land, few have no income. For example, 10% of land owners (all corporations) in Baltimore, Maryland own 58% of the taxable land value. The bottom 10% of those who own any land own less than 1% of the total land value. - Kromkowski -CSE/HGFA, 2007"

This situation has grown worse since 2008 crash and forclosures.

My comment about the air is an observation held by many.

Basic water falling from the sky is a birthright, not a commercial opportunity. Rain is not made by anyone and humans survival depends on water which is shared with all other living things. We depend on them too.

I see below a Colorado comment reflects a situation that should alarm us all.

Perhaps we all have our own way of saying things but I would defend fair opportunity for young families to get established and set up a good environment to raise children.

Families are the lifeblood of our community. The ordinary people now are poorer than 40 years ago while the 1% are milking the system openly and without regard to the rights of others.

Wealth distribution is not working for the 90+% who control only 29% of wealth while the bottom 40% control a mere 0.2% of the wealth..

The bottom 80% have less than 5% of the financial wealth. Approximately 100 million citizens have little freedom and are trapped in poverty.

The most prosperous thing I see is those who argue to protect the 1% continuing to bleed the system, control the media and somehow manage to create division and confusion among the majority who pay for their empire.

I am with KnowledgableFellow. You are an idiot. I have worked in real estate my whole adult life. The 1% doesn't hold title to all the unoccupied land. I see many small families, elderly couples, and small business owners selling or partitioning land. These are not the giant conglomerate Boogey Man corporations you generalize about. I have even had dealings with some of Warren Buffets companies...GUESS WHAT?! The largest owner of mobile home parks in the US is none other than Mr. Buffet himself. His company is responsible for housing large amounts of the 99% at a very reasonable cost, but he is one of the 1% and therefore a Boogey Man, not to be trusted.

This movement is flailing. This movement has potential, but it needs strong and articulate leadership, which it currently lacks. It needs clear cut and attainable goals, even if they are stepping stones to getting to the bigger goals.

I believe we need to restructure Congress:No pay for lack of budget balance, no lifetime pensions, same health system Americans are forced to obtain.

I believe we need to rework the FDA and the EPA...both thoroughly corrupt entities.

I believe the Federal Reserve needs to be dismantled.

The OWS movement is too scattered and sloppy. It is alienating part of their defined 99% because they lack vision and planning, they have no common or clearly defined goals, and they have no plan to make it happen.

I want change, but this moment is not something I can believe in for many reasons. This is America. We are not socialist (although Obama is doing his best to spread the wealth to the world...). I do not support paying people, or guaranteeing work for people who are lazy, unskilled, not driven, and can't follow instructions. No one is OWED anything in this life. We have all had to EARN everything we have. There are jobs out there right now that Americans won't do. I see signs for fast food servers needed, with panhandlers sitting in front of the same institution. I see work in South Dakota for people willing to work hard in the Oil industry, but Oil is considered bad, and the work is hard, and you might have to get dirty.

I have started two companies in the worst depression in the US since the Great One. I have struggled and have been forced to live below the poverty line, which I can do now easily. I have hired 8 people in the last 3 years, paid for job retraining, and am working to try to grow my company. Yet somehow I feel like the OWS people would see this as 'capitalistic' and would try to boycott my company because I am actually making progress. I am not wealthy and I will never be in the 1%, but I sure as hell am going to try to obtain that kind of wealth.

I am not sure how it is the government's responsibility to assure that people make enough money to buy a home. I don't own a home, and while I believe that home ownership is the basic fabric on which the American Dream is built...it is just that, a dream. Not a right.

And therein lies the problem, apparently you are voice of reason, I see nothing in your argument that validates your name. I commend you for trying so hard in such hard times, however I would like to inform you that you little rant is made up exactly of the pill the 1% sugarcoats before they ram it down our throat.

I particularly take issue with your quite pessimistic statement "No one is OWED anything in this life. We have all had to EARN everything we have." So by your argument, a child should have to earn their keep before they even know how? Don't even answer that, it is irrelevant. What is relevant might stretch your obviously comfortable imagination, but bear with me here. What if we lived in a world where everyone was owed the basic rights that all humans need to survive? What if everyone had the mentality of human equality and money was not a concern. You may throw the words socialist utopia out in reply and call me naive and whatnot but I assure you those are just your inner demons talking. The first step to change is to believe in it my friend, did you not have hopes and dreams when you were a child? Did you not have aspirations that were different than "owning a company and living below the poverty line?" I'll bet you did. What happened to those dreams, were they truly just dreams? If that is what you believe, and you see nothing wrong with that, then you will indeed have a hard time understanding what I am saying. I will try to keep it as simple as possible. If all humans believed that they were all owed the rights to live comfortably, then trust me, we would all be living comfortable lives. Don't you see? You need only to believe, not give in to the power hungry grab for money just to satisfy an ego that dominates your every move. Money is at the root of this argument, just like it has been at the root of pretty much every political and obviously economical problem ever.

I support the OWS Movement because they inherently feel something isn't right. We have been taught that a college education is pretty much needed to get by in this world. Then when we graduate from college covered in debt we get called lazy and incompetent by the same people who pushed us into college in the first place because we cannot find a job that is suited to our level of education. Sure I'm sure the local McDonald's might be hiring, but what kind of pay is $8 an hour? Even assuming a full 40 hour work week (which is seldom, since these companies rarely hire full-time positions) that is $320 a week and roughly around $15,000 a year. So get a second job says the generation that pushed us into college. So assuming 80 hours a week making $30,000 a year working for the same damn companies that got us into this mess in the first place, is it any wonder that people are fed up with this style of life? Besides someone who went through 2-4 years of college is justified in believing that they might deserve something a little more substantial for their hard work. That is why there isn't anyone working in the oil industry or the fast food industry, they're busy looking for other lines of work.

If you have no fight in you, that is fine. Some people weren't made for those kinds of things. I'm sure you are good at something, everybody is. However there are people out there fighting for what they believe in, and if they have no goals that's ok too. They don't need to answer to you or to anyone for that matter, since according to you "no one is OWED anything in this life. We all have had to EARN everything we have." If you want a goal from them, then why don't you earn it by becoming the goal you want to see them become. Sort of like becoming the change you want to see in this world (if you are following that ideal right now, then you must want to see a very sad future coming up). The OWS is the first real beacon of light that I have seen since the time I have been old enough to understand and stay interested in this sort of thing (I am 22 years old, so the civil rights era was before my time.) They don't need to make demands because to make demands of Wall Street is to recognize it. They are simply there to tell the entire world that something is wrong, and why they think it is wrong. As far as I'm concerned (or the U.S. constitution for that matter) there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion. You have your opinion I have mine, I believe that there is good in you as in all human beings and in under different conditions we could have been living in paradise.

"No one is OWED anything in this life. We have all had to EARN everything we have." So by your argument, a child should have to earn their keep before they even know how? Don't even answer that, it is irrelevant.

I have to answer your obtuse question...Children do not have to earn their keep. Their parents do. Are you really making this argument???

I started my companies, and while I did not enjoy living below the poverty level, I did it and am better for it. I sacrificed, I worked, and guess what?!?! I am now earning money and living a productive, healthy life. I had to risk a lot, but without risk there is no reward.

Which leads me to my next point. If you graduate from college and can only find a job at minimum wage, that is sad. It also shows a complete lack of drive and focus. There are jobs out there, an not at $8.00 an hour, but you have to actually work.

As you are only 22 years old, and unemployed I would imagine from your comments. I have been working for longer than you have been alive. I have been self employed since I was 18. I don't owe you a living, but that is what you want from me. The 1% is not going to suddenly cut a check to give you a roof over your head and food on your plate.

You are right about one thing. They system is broken. But no one is going to throw out the system and take up a new socialist one. Setting goals, clear and real objectives, is what makes a movement successful. If your goal is to "tell the entire world that something is wrong, and why they think it is wrong", well OWS can't even do that well. The world may know something is wrong, but the reasons are all over the place and completely lacking clarity. It is not the Boogey Man's fault, it is not because class sizes are too big. In fact, there is not ONE reason, but there is not a single articulate thought being expressed. If that is your only goal.

I have no desire to live in your paradise, where people who won't work get just as much as those of us who bust our asses to succeed. I believe that you reap what you sow. I am planting like there is no tomorrow so that I can provide for my family now and in the future.

I have no interest in protecting the so-called 1%. But it is just ludicrous to envision "corporations" to be buying up all the land and then jacking up prices. Developers buy land, build homes, sell the homes and hopefully make a profit. As for as small developers having problems getting financing, well, that can be true. But the truth is, there are many small time developers. Some are stable financially,but many are not. Of course the ones that are not stable financially have trouble securing financing. That's how any credit system works. The default rates are much higher for the small developers than the large. I know this, I spent many years as a lender at a bank. You proposition of people not being able to buy land is preposterous.

With wages hardly moving for a sizable part of the work force, the increase in cost of living, the wage packet is not providing enough for saving towards purchase of a home for many. Even two people working with all that means to a family, has now become a necessity to meet the weekly bills.
Further down the chain job scarcity and competition for jobs makes for a very grim outlook.

Of course there are many situations where small developers do a fair job of opening up land and organizing building lots.

The trend of corporate money and local political power taking hold of housing is the worry. Home ownership is displaced by this trend.

To suggest the housing bubble didn't happen and banks were not a part of the problem is unrealistic.

Political lobbying by the bankers for reduced allowable equity in financing property deals and banks loaning money where no equity existed apart from a notional equity due to inflated pricing, as a result of such practices; set the scene for an inevitable crash.

Bubbles burst and the harder they are inflated then the sooner it happens. Banks and bankers lobbied hard reducing the security required in many steps downward. That lobbying should have been resisted but bought politician can't resist too hard. The prices inflated bringing large profits to the big players while the banks sold off the shonky toxic mortgages into a gambling casino of derivatives.

It all fell over. The world has suffered as a result.

Banks cannot be exonerated even though staff within the banks as small players may have been caught up with competition for making business. A bank officer is not liable for losses eventuating where a high risk mortgage is signed up. The pressure may be on him or her to get business. Responsibility for adverse outcomes through commonsense being over ridden just is not there.

Plenty of people cannot buy land, nor housing, nor find a job, afford to get medical care and do not see it getting better.

You are considerably wrong when you say the bankers lobbied hard to get reduced equity mortgages. That just is not true. Check the history and facts. The biggest culprits are Christopher Dodd, a former senator, and Barney Frank, a Representative. They bought votes from the masses by making it easier to get mortgages. Those two, and many other Democrats, are directly responsible for blowing up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If that had not been done, there most likely would have been a housing bubble, because that is a cyclical event, but not anything like what we saw. There is a lot of blame to go around to a lot of people. But don't put it all on the lender and not the borrower. That is the same as solely blaming the bartender for the drunk.

So where did you get the notion that this all started with the banks lobbying Washington for what Dodd, Frank and others did for their own gain? Because history shows that is not true.

Much has been published about the trail of events leading to the toxic derivative gambling casino resulting in the 2008 meltdown. Fred and Fannie were caught up in the aftermath. You can't expect to play with fire without burns. The householders got no protection.

Bankers are still at the game of lobbying ( the sanitized description of buying favour )

The Mortgage Bankers Association has a political action committee called Mortgage Bankers Association Political Action Committee (MORPAC)[3]. MORPAC raises money to help elect and re-elect candidates to Congress who have an understanding of the real estate finance and housing industries, and who are supportive of the mortgage profession. The lobbying group is headed by Bill Killmer, Senior Vice President of Legislative and Political Affairs.”

"Banking lobby successfully defeats mortgage cram-down provision.”
“At some point the senators in this chamber will decide the bankers shouldn’t write the agenda for the United States Senate. At some point the people in this chamber will decide the people we represent are not the folks working in the big banks, but the folks struggling to make a living and struggling to keep a decent home.”

Look, the banks did not cause the housing bubble. They did not, but I doubt if you will ever see the light. Despite you concocted devilish plans you attribute to "the banks", the housing melt down was not good for the banks. Just take a look at near record bank closures. Take a look at historic hits to their market values. One has to be pretty fucking dumb to think the banks intentionally brought this on and now are reaping the benefits as they planned. That makes no sense at all.

I'm not going to address your post, comment by comment. I just don't have that kind of patience right now. But to say Fannie and Freddie were at the tail end of this demonstrates that you don't know the mortgage system designed and set up by the Democrats. It was always about buying votes. Fannie and Freddie were the tools of the Democrats to buy votes by making mortgages available. How many videos of congressional hearings do you want me to post? Ten? Twenty? Thirty? If the mass media wasn't the lap dog of the left, the Democrats would be in big trouble over all that.

You act like the Mortgage Bankers Assn and its lobbying efforts are evil. Why? Because they represent banks? As long as you have the lobbying system, then they are perfectly legal.

I see you linked in how the MGA helped fight the cram down legislation. Quick, without the benefits of google, can you explain what cram down means? Can you explain the implications on the credit markets and credit availability if that legislation passes? Can you explain how it is ok for laws to arbitrarily impinge on a lenders right to collateral originally agreed upon by both parties?

Unfortunately for your argument, any senator that gets into bed with the powers which can then pay him money to do what they want is just an arm of that power. If you think that Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Frank didn't somehow make money off of the ton of people they pushed into poverty, then you are grossly misunderstanding the way the Government has worked for the past 30 years or so.

So true maybe the banks didn't directly lobby but they sure as hell had their entire damn hand in the pie.

You are correct, the banks did not lobby for low equity mortgages. These were created and underwritten to standards created by Wall Street.

Despite that fact, these people who accepted these mortgages knew what the mortgage entailed: full repayment on a monthly basis with payments that my rise depending on the index to which their mortgage was tied. They did the math, they knew what they could afford. They still chose to lie on their applications, overstate their income (proof was not required), and they gambled on the fact that prices would stay the same or higher and that interest rates would remain stable.

Guess What? They made a bad bet and now they have to deal with the consequences. No one held a gun to their head and MADE them sign their mortgage paperwork. They only put 5% or less down but leveraged themselves into losing their home if the economic factors were not perfect.

We all make bad decisions. Man up and accept the fact that a low equity, adjustable rate mortgage was a bad idea. You gambled and you LOST. The mortgages are legal. The foreclosures are legal. While Wall Street made it available, YOU signed the papers with the devil.

Show one shred of evidence that low equity mortgages were created and underwritten to standards created by wall street. Come on, I'm waiting.

I get so damn tired of people shooting their mouths off and saying things they think sounds right, but just isn't so.

Those mortgages were mostly created by those Democrats in congress who wanted a mortgage for everyone...well at least everyone they wanted to vote for them. The two big names are CHRISTOPHER DODD and BARNEY FRANK.

Why don't any of you OWL types ever go after them, rather than that generic label....banks?

Bullshit. I was a loan officer and work in real estate. The only loans designed by government are FHA, and to some extent Fannie and Freddie. The loans funded that started the snowball that overturned the economy were devised by the secondary mortgage market to be pooled and sold as mortgage backed securities. They were not the FHA loans or the conventional loans underwritten to FNMA or FHLMC standards. They were adjustable rate mortgages with 0-5% down, stated income qualifying (liar loans). FHA always requires qualifying. FNMA and FHLMC had some programs that were stated income, but most were through portfolio lenders who packages and sold them on the secondary loan market, aka Wall Street.

Introducing new ideas and the vocabulary that expresses them can be alienating to people at first, it's true. I think it's better to be honest though, rather than trying to get people's support by only saying what they are comfortable with hearing. Other language and concepts that we now take for granted probably sounded weird when they were first introduced too. Like the terms "African-American" instead of "Negro" or "Colored", and "developmentally disabled" instead of "retarded".

That being said, I'm probably not going to start calling myself a "female-bodied person"--for me that doesn't fully express my identity. And it was funny.

American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the 5 hijackers, were killed, as were 125 people in the building. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed; firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze.

Of course an investigation would have taken pictures of the remains of the plane. There would have been jet engines, hundreds of seats, the landing gear, pieces of luggage and bodies of the victims if the official story was true. The law suit by April Gallop who worked at the same spot of the explosion and claimed there was no sign of any plane was dismissed by Judge Denny Chin. Chin was then promoted from the SDNY district court to the 2nd Circuit. On appeal 2nd Circuit judge John M. Walker, Jr. sat on the panel. Walker is the cousin of President George Bush in a case filed against Cheney, Rumsfeld, and General Meyers.

Judge Chin's reason was that April Gallop is delusional. If the Boeing jet had truly crashed into the Pentagon, the pictures of the debris would have validated Chin's reason to dismiss the suit. Allowing the trial would have revealed April was delusional by producing the photos of the plane's parts.

Obviously there were no plane parts because there are no photos. Flight 77 was taken some place and all 64 people were murdered. These are facts they are not opinions.

Virtually no plane parts that would match the alleged passenger carrier.

Where were the bodies

All video tapes from security cameras in the area confiscated by Govt

No pictures of a plane crashing shown ( look closely at the 2 photos released)
Witness testimony is not consistent but physical evidence is not consistent with a plane crash.

The Pentgon could release a mass of photographic record but won't or can't.

It is unlikely that they can show a passenger plane or they would.

Their story is not credible.

BUT

There are many other constructions out there, some far from possibility but others have authoritative and respected backing from Professionals and Aviators.

911 seems amongst another coincidences, to be a distraction away fron the 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS missing from the accounts. announced late the previous day - defense account used to line pockets ? Later independent analysts place it closer to 4 Trillion.

All that seems to be forgotten after 911 demolition and the war on terror which is continuing.after 10 years.

You missed my point entirely. Jet engines, 100s of seats, landing gear, etc would have been inside the pentagon. I'm not writing about before the plane hit the Pentagon (because there was no plane that ever hit the Pentagon).

The evidence made public does not support a plane crashing into the Pentagon. Lack of seats and plane parts is consistent with no plane being involved let alone the specific type of plane claimed to have been hijacked.

The speculation of a missle is also unproven but looks a possible contender. A drone type aircraft has also been speculated using the technology of the time.

I certainly agree with you.

A properly referenced and independent inquiry with power to summon needs to be undertaken.

The problem, however, is that the longer you let myths go unchallenged, the greater is their ability to masquerade as truths.

They already have been told that many many times but no credible evidence has been produced.

Even the FBI have released a statement to say they have no evidence indicating Bin Laden had any involvement.

The Arab "hijackers " names came from a list allending a CIA training camp in Pakistan preparing insurgent to disrupt Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Since the list of 19 names were released many of them have been tracked down and found alive.

I think most people feel as strongly as you obviously do about 911 but the papers are just not publishing any thing about it that does not fit with Bush's conspiracy about mythical Arabs. Look who owns the media.

The firemen attending the aftermath of the planes hitting 2 of the WTC buildings reported multiple explosions all down through the buildings, the news shots showed it and there is a massive amount of scientific evidence produced since by laboratories analyzing the debris from the buildings. The three WTC building s demolished fell at free fall speed. That means all resistance imposed by the massive steel columns just disappeared. The building fell into their own footprint.

International demolition experts as well as American demolition experts also have examined the evidence available, concluding that it was a professionally managed demolition job on the THREE WTC building . Remember only TWO of the WTC building were hit by planes. WTC was not hit by a plane but was demolished after the other two buildings fell.

This is all public information. Pathetic attempts to explain how Bush's story accounts for this have all been shot to pieces by many publically accredited experts backed by good science.

Nearly 2000 Architects and Engineers who are the experts on buildings of that type, say that impact by planes could not demolish the buildings. A part of the design brief was that the buildings could withstand impact of the largest planes of the time. A safety factor making the building many times stronger than that was also part of the design.

A growing group of independent qualified and very concerned people are demanding an Inquiry as so many things not only don't add up to Bush's story but there has been reprisals against some of the experts speaking out.

Thousands of people have signed a petition calling for a proper inquiry that is independent and can subpoena and have power to call for proper examination of debris from the building which is impounded, hidden from the public and under guard still.

911 is a crime of monstrous proportion.

It is all a shocking event and many families have understandable anger at what has happened. The nation should be demanding proper investigation.

It is not a matter of what me or anyone says about there being information and evidence that points to the public being told a conspiracy by Bush and Co.

The evidence speaks clearly for those who are open minded enough to look at it.

I have no vested interest is what conclusions are eventually reached except that what ever is the truth needs a proper investigation and if there are criminal actions that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Free speech should see the media showing the new evidence. Free speech appears to be dying. OWS is a result.

9/11 is the pinnacle of crime by Bush and the government. OWS liberals respond the same as irrational right wing people, indicating the ridiculous propaganda lies by the government puts them all in the same trance. One of the liberals refused to answer with a simple yes or no that there will be an election in November 2012. After many attempts to get an answer he finally said yes, there will be an election in 2012..

The argument in the previous post was expected to receive overwhelming acceptance from the OWS liberals who hate the inequities by the Bush conservatives, but they proved me wrong again. These people reject any sensible approach to solve their complaints. They want to sit in the park and whine, results don't matter to them.

There is no American intelligentsia. The entire country is mired by ridiculous nonsense. At least America still has sports and other brilliant forms of entertainment. It would be pleasant to ignore politics and economics.

911 destruction of the 3 WTC buildings by systematically and professionally placed explosive was not only obvious from the first day it appeared on TV but all the Conspiracy propaganda spouted by Bush just compounded that we should be extremely worried about how the media was being used.

It has taken years for hard evidence to be gathered and presented yet the public still have a core that do not wish to know. This is changing and polls indicate the shift to belief that it was an inside job.

My point is expressing what I see as missing hard evidence supporting a plane at the Pentagon site - that was agreeing with the important points of what you were saying.

Hard evidence is the best way I know of establishing what is the information that can be relied on, and guide further investigation. The evidence has to be robust when presented to the public.

I am no knocking what you have posted. Your post is on of the few I have read on this site getting to the heart of the 911 matter.

Bush and cronies have conned the public with a false flag attack on America.

Many people it appears just can't bend their mind from what they have been told by Govt Propaganda. Papers and media seldom allow any coverage of the 911 crime.

The tenth anniversary of the 911 attack on the WTC and America, brought forward a fresh round of propaganda in the media reiterating rubbish that has been disproven years ago.

Even the FBI have stated publicly that they have no evidence of Bin Laden's involvement.

The so called arab hijackers must be super human as most of them have been tracked down since and found alive. The Arab names used by Bush appear to hava been pucked from a CIA list of recruits attending a CIA training camp in Pakistan some time before.

Still the propaganda is spewed out.

The most reliable website for carefully verified relevant information to date appears to be the conservative Architects and Engineers for truth site. They have tried hard to stayed clear of speculation, and concentrate on factual evidence. I think they are on the right track for several reasons.

There are so many lies spread on the subject that confusion is a barrier to the public understanding what took place. It is important that Americans have knowledge of how the WTC buildings were brought down.

Outside of the US the understanding appear to be much higher.

The public mind in USA appear to be numbed with the crap on TV and important issues are relegated. This has to be deliberate.

911 WTC buildings evidence is the eye opener for most who want to look at the evidence from expert independent professional Engineers and Scientists.

Many "debunking" sites are out there attempting to discredit professional and sincere presentation of hard core relevant facts and peer reviewed information about the physics of the "collapse " of the 3 WTC buildings.

Supporting testimony from fireman's observations , on the spot testimony filmed at the actual 911 event, as well as the thorough follow up investigations by building professionals, independent scientists, ex military personel who were shocked by the inside job.

Forensic analysis of the debris showing massive explosive residue is also there among a wealth of carefully reviewed information, checked by independent publicly accredited experts and scientific laboratories.

oh my gosh, why are you talking about this in response to a Colbert video? None of that is even mentioned in their conversations. Can't you find another place to post where people actually want to read about the subjects you are interested in discussing? It's good to discuss them, this just isn't the relevant place.

This is exactly the right place for all my issues. Are you the OWS God who decides issues? All the OWS crap that everybody can offer their point of view is another lie. The OWS victims keep protecting the government criminals with the same trance. The liars are flip floppers. When criminals are prosecuted for bank robbery, the prosecution doesn't say murder is off limits.

You liberal wimps piss me off. Oh my fucking gosh.

There's no pictures of the plane that hit the Pentagon because NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. Is that OK WITH ows GOD.

You know how you can be 100% sure that it was not a missile that hit the pentagon on 9/11 (aside from the evidence recovered on the ground. See Jim Hoffman's article on this subject) is that the perpetrators could not have guaranteed ahead of time that no images would be caught of the impact that they could not contain. Much like Mr Naudet caught the North Tower impact because he just happen to be filming in the vicinity at the right moment.

That said, there is no question wtc 1 2 and 7 were brought down with preplanted explosives; the evidence for this over overwhelming, to say the least. So let's please stick to those facts http://smu.gs/jvzZxu and stay away from the disinformation ridden 'no planes' nonsense.

I tell the truth. Too bad you don't want the truth. That is what destroys any chance for justice. The stupid remark you just made. -- http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/

Tiger called a black asshole by his caddy

Why is that a big deal? How is that racist? Steve Williams, Tiger's famous caddy addressed a caddy dinner before a tournament and claimed, "I apologize for comments I made last night at the Annual Caddy Awards dinner in Shanghai. Players and caddies look forward to this evening all year and the spirit is always joking and fun. I now realize how my comments could be construed as racist. However I assure you that was not my intent. I sincerely apologize to Tiger and anyone else I have offended," but the damage has been done.

America is filled with assholes. There are massive amounts of stupidity. ignorance, irrationality, lying is prevalent. The liars are protected with "flip-flop". This is baby talk by American citizens who attack anybody who call's a liar, a liar. That's not permitted in America because it violates the sacred "political correct" propaganda that has put the entire country of America into a depression and down spiral that has thrown millions of families into the street as a direct result of simple bank and securities fraud.

Bribes are taken in the open. The massive protest by the OWS is about bribes. You would think that people who are so angry about bribes, would be eager to use the word bribes, but that is absolutely not the case. Instead they are in a literal trance of "political correctness" and use the cover-up for bribery which is -- corporate money, donations, contributions, campaign finance.

I have been to the park six times and I have mentioned this absurdity, but the trance is so deep they go right on to not use the word "bribe". They are too arrogant to immediately recognize that I am pointing out a huge flaw in their entire protest. I'm interested in honesty and justice. Honesty and justice has no place in America. Rick Perry's conservative audience in the Republican debates both laugh and applauded the fact that Perry bragged about the 342 executions he allowed because he claims there are no flaws. Not one innocent person was executed for crimes they didn't commit.

America is the world's capital for witch hunts. That is to say that American justice is not as bad as North Korea. American people fall right into line with irrational, weird, bizarre, deceitful behavior. It is the total American culture. There is a night and day propaganda brainwashing operation that completely allows the privileged to rape (in the case of Strauss-Kahn), and the biggest one of all time is 9/11. The American people uniformly, adamantly refuse to examine the facts that prove the 9/11 attack was by George Bush.

No people who are free to think for themselves would willingly want to cover up Bush for his 9/11 attack. Let's bicker about calling Tiger a black asshole. That will keep people in their hypocrisy, fantasy land. Lot's of fairy tales for all Americans who love being in nursery school. That's the state of the American culture that is made into jokes by Jon Stewart, the super brilliant Colbert, the SNL shows, and Letterman. They find outrageously stupid remarks by all the people running for president to be funny. They are told to make jokes but they are precisely what happened on video tape.

Colbert is drawing attention to the most important aspect of OWS, namely the GA. They are showing everyone in a concrete way how to proceed with civil government. The protests, rallies and conflicts draw media attention but the GA is where the rubber meets the road,

Ketchup in her unflappable way asserted the dominant views of occupiers with the opportunity that Colbert provided. He could have shut her down but did not. His comic relief was light handed and tolerant.

The fact that people of the status quo do not get it is exemplified by their demand for goals and agenda. They have obviously never attended a GA, that is the goal and agenda. It is already accomplished but they do not 'get it.'

Keep growing, stay peaceful, tolerate and be nice to one another. Join the GA. 'They' can't handle that because they do not understand it or the fact that their day in the sun is over.

Colbert is a fucking genius, and he's been one of my favorites for a long time.

That being said, it bothers me what a piece like this does towards subverting and canonizing the movement. Think about it- we need people to keep getting involved, to keep waking up to the harsh reality that the 1% have put us in. We DON'T need our movement to be used as fodder for a corporate TV network's show that only lulls us into passivity.

The hand signals are about the stupidest thing the OWC has accomplished. It would be interesting to know who came up with that (a satirist?). Sounds like group California newage therapy almost. And what is with the female bodied person etc. WTF? It was easy to mock this stuff esp. as the couple did not have much of a sense of humor themselves. Here it was, a national hip audience and they could not get out any substantive ideas instead Colbert played them about "process". Course, Colbert is brilliant and hard to prepare for. But, again, national TV audience and no mention is made of recent actions, ideas, goals, etc.???? Sad. I understand the romantic idealism of these young people but I assume they have no idea who Colbert is????? I think we need better representatives of the Movement next time.

I think the finger wiggling looks a little silly too. However, it's purpose (as Ketchup says very well) is to help facilitators get a sense of how many people are in consensus about something. In the absence of something less Monty Python, it serves its purpose. so, whatever works...

I think that Colbert didn't really give them a fair chance to talk much about their actions. Which was annoying to me, actually. He steered the conversation, and they didn't really get a chance to say anything substantial because he kept interrupting. I don't think it was there fault. If he had asked them about what was being done I think they would have been able to articulate it well. And what they did say was very intelligently stated, especially when Justin (I think) explained how accepting Colbert's "sponsorship" would perpetuate the same system that the OWS is working against.

look, no doubt colbert is challenging; hell, he is a comedian and a brilliant satirist; the hands signals i don't get. for about 10,000 years, people raised their arm or grunted yes or somesuch silly thing; so, no, i still do not get it; but what threw me over the edge was this absolutely total bullshit thing of female and male bodied persons; WTF?? are you kidding me; and then she goes on to say something about identifying with some genital parts??? sorry, this whole frickin thing is getting bizarre; i am beginning to think that there are too many wackos amongst you; i use to see the same thing in the Green Party-newage bullshit that gummed up the works and meant any serious focus was constantly sidelined; and that was 20 years ago. I suggest you get more serious or go home. There is no substitute for the hard work of organizing. Some of this stuff is a simple diversion and an attempt to FEEL as if you are really important and doing something REALLY profound. Protesting and demonstrating is EASY. The hard part is organizing and building an organization. You all are VERY lucky. You have people donating lots of money, apparently some half a million dollars. That can sustain you a long time. Hell, i would be interested in knowing what the money is going for besides the obvious food, shelter, heaters, clothes, sleeping bags, etc. Personally, i would like to see money spent on getting nice clothes for everybody in an attempt to invade some of the wall street buildings which house the enemy (i can see some cringing from me using this word in the make-believe fantasy that we can all live together in perfect harmony......the folks who are in the 1% or as I prefer to designate the real enemy, the Plutocracy, do not give a flying fuck about you or your protests. When they finally give the word, you will be cleared out of your Park in a nanosecond. and i suspect it is coming pretty soon.

Um.... the hand signals were developed, because the NYPD told the protesters they couldn't use megaphones or the like to speak with.... so something had to be developed in order for crowds of people to communicate. Why do you think they are stupid? The deaf use hand signals for communication as well.

Instead of giving some bullshit opinion ("group California newage therapy") on how stupid you think something is, maybe you should find out why things are done the way they are first.

Ah, how about the old-fashioned method of raising hands? I thought raising your arm in the air signified an affirmation or was that offensive somehow to someone? Wriggling fingers in the air is better than raising your arm? Okay, I will be patient and await your answer to that one. I can see you feel this is really important. What about the explanation for the female bodied person? You people are starting to look really silly and I am one who supports you. Get real. This stuff is not substantive. It is great to see you have some process which are simple parliamentary rules for running a meeting. If you want to act like the hand signals are important, fine. Just do not imagine for a second that they are in anyway important or some great advancement in communication.

No, raising a hand means you want to say something. You can't simply use handraising as a response for anything you want to say. What difference does it make what signals are used anyway? Are you really THAT bothered by them?

I'm the one who feels this is important? You're the one bitching about the hand signals used!!!!

As for Ketchup's explanation about a female-bodied person, I completely understand it. What she is saying is.... just because you may have female "plumbing", it doesn't mean you fit into the traditional idea of a female. In other words, you may like females instead of males. She said there are people of many different types. It wasn't hard for me to understand.

Did anyone ever say the hand signals are any kind of great advancement in communication???? Colbert asked what the hand signals meant, and Justin and Ketchup explained. They never claimed that they are some revolutionary system of communication, did they (or anyone else)? The signals were developed out of need..... the need to communicate effectively in large groups of people!!!

For fucks's sake, I don't get what your hang up is with the hand signals.

You people who want to discredit this movement will find any little petty piece of bullshit to try to shoot it down with. That is pathetic.

It makes you look fucking silly. And sexual orientation has nothing to do with accomplishing things. You are beginning to sound ridiculous defending it. Here they were on national TV and instead of being proactive, they were reactive. Just the wrong people to be spokespersons. Even the name, Ketchup mocks the whole thing. What's next, a discussion on clothes or breathing patterns. You are trying to build support and this stuff makes you look like idiots. You don't understand that? I support the Movement, btw.

"It makes you look fucking silly." That's a response that says you are unaware and don't understand the process.

I explained what Ketchup meant by "female-bodied".... since you're the one who brought it up. If it has nothing to do with accomplishing things, why did you bring it up? There was a reason she said it, or should wouldn't have done it.

Many people say that others look silly while doing things that the accusers don't understand. That is a statement of fear because of not understanding.

I have a deaf friend who plays baseball. When she does something well during games, the rest of us who can hear, put our hands up in the air and wave them back and forth when she is looking at us. We are clapping for her and telling her "good job" (since she can't hear us clapping). Would you think THAT looks fucking silly if you didn't know she is deaf and you didn't understand why we were doing it.... or would you simply think that you're not sure why we are doing it or what it means without thinking it's fucking silly?

The fact that you think the hand signals are fucking silly shows your ignorance of the situation and the fear that your ignorance is causing you.

Darlin' you are full of gobbledygook. But I forgive you. You are probably just too young and inexperienced. Good luck on the protest thing. Call me when you get a Platform and a Plan. But I guess I am just so fearful over my ignorance of the situation there (I be trembling with anxiety and shaking in my boots). I suspect you all feel so wonderful at the meetings wiggling fingers and doin' on the hand jive stuff. Cute but vapid.

I have to agree with Sanchez on this. You can't build a movement and gain majority support by allowing yourselves to be portrayed as the stereotypes that the mainstream press has used to classify you as. My God who thought those two as spokespeople were a good choice?

All the media has done is try to paint the picture that OWS is nothing but a bunch of pretentious hipsters who got bored one day and strolled down to the park to tweet revolution from their iPads. And so what do you all do to counter that assertion? You allow someone named Ketchup to go on national television and talk about being "female bodied". Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

This was a completely reactive interview and that's sad because it's pretty apparent based off the intro to the piece that Steven intended to go in soft. His angle was going to be using extremes such as in the beginning when he acted like Che/Castro and the mid to end section where he was drinking champagne while eating tons of sausages.

Instead of that being the only comical portion he was able to use the absurdity of the participants to the fullest. Maybe the hand signals do have a point and serve a purpose but from the interview it comes off as an aesthetics choice rather than one of necessity. They explained how they use them but not why, there was no real mention of the restriction of megaphones and so now the American audience that watched this thinks this is the decision of a bunch of newage nuts.

I understand OWS wants to be leaderless and act as a community but if they don't start getting smart about how they approach media and spread their message they're screwed.

Exactly. Look, Colbert is incredibly funny, just my type of humor and these kids were really sweet and this is not the best opp to get a message out but if they had thought about it, they could have thrown out a couple lines of substance, interjected to reach the national audience. What I am more concerned about is how this movement has been infected by this superficial nonsense. I mean, again, female bodied person??????????? Please.

after watching the first part i was a bit annoyed...ready to pounce...
but after watching the second part, the satire comes full circle...
it is well done, but OWS would probably benefit from putting part 1 and 2 on the homepage, so people can see the full narrative....
the first one does walk on the edge of making fun...i laughed, it was hilarious...
but it frightened me a bit, to see the movement on mass-media getting slightly caricatured...
even though colbert has always been a supporter of progressive ideas...he still is corporate media, a character himself...it would be far more powerful if the 'real' stephen colbert came to Occupy Wall Street and took off his public persona and gave his personal weight to the movement...

well written Akbar. My sentiments exactly. Colbert is all about the bump. The old adage " there is no such thing as bad publicity" might be the way to
think about it. At the very least, our audience is getting broader. Which is why it's good to deliver a concise message.

I use to like Colbert because I thought he was against the corporations and lying presidents. But as I'm sure now after seeing this, he's an absolute idiot. Regardless if the Justin and Ketchup got the message across, Colbert was using character assisination to defame them. This is a logical attack by using Ad hominem fallacies. At least Ketchup and Justin stood up and did not give in. Good on you guys!

I'd like to stand up for Colbert. I've read all of the derogatory comments on here, and it seems that everybody missed the point with the exception of a few. To those that weren't paying attention: This skit is poetry presented in the form of satire with strong idiosyncratic undertones. Colbert is in brilliant character and this should be critiqued as a work of art; anything less would be an injustice.

How can so many commenters give precedence to the explicit talking points while overlooking the symbolism, irony, and other stylistic elements that are so much more elegant? Surely one could find subliminal hints of a higher meaning or purpose in the choice of the main course and Colbert's gluttonous consumption, if everything else was missed.

The irony and genius of this skit is that it is a divine and emotional advertisement for the Occupy Movement in the sublime but on the surface it is right wing propaganda for the myopic. How can one get mad at Colbert for appealing to all audiences and elegantly taking sides with the Occupy Movement? If one overlooks everything else, the amount of time Colbert spent on this illustrates that he understands the importance and significance of its value to improving the quality of our society. What this skit does is force prudent people to think, make comparisons, examine ideas, and question their political as well as social ideologies.

In short, this is exactly what I like to see and I hope that it will elicit change for the better. I applaud Colbert for raising the entertainment bar and providing incredible content that addresses the issues of today.

Perhaps at one level, that of puerile mockery, it somewhat resembles satire, but true satire uses a scalpel, not a truncheon. To experience real - and magnificent - satire, read Swift's 18th century essay, "A Modest Proposal", which, I hasten to add, might be unfair to Colbert or any other satirist, faux or otherwise, because it might well be the greatest single example of satire ever written. And by the way, I love humor and satire, and most of the plays I write are comedic, etc. - www.mybarbaricyawp.org. But for me the only amusing and intelligent part of the Colbert offering was the thoroughly sane and articulate responses his two guests attempted to offer as gentle counterbalance to his blustering mockery. And apparently like many of the responders here, I am very much an advocate of being able to laugh at oneself, especially when the context is trully serious. It's a kind of variation of Hemingway's "Grace under pressure". But again, I fail to see the humor in this Colbert stint, and I'm far from blind.

This piece is really great i am glad i stumbled upon. Though Stephen didnt allow them to really speak on the issues that not only the U.S but the world is facing, it really is important to stay involved and keep fighting for the fact that there shouldn't be a "1%" or a "99%" we should be an equal society. I have bigger reasons why im fighting this other than the fact that our government has turned into an egotistical melting pot. I believe that its not too late to start preserving our planet and natural resources. I live in Miami an amazing always growing city but then i see homes that are in inner city neighborhoods destroyed an abandoned and then i see the streets filled with hungry people, people with no jobs that had to leave their homes and their kids. I passed at least 200 abandoned homes that day on my way home from a near by place in downtown Miami. Imagine how many jobs could be created by rebuilding those homes, how many neighborhoods can be transformed from this impoverishment and depression. We have to help ourselves before "The 1%" will agree and find peace. We need to stay strong, we are the 99%.

i like this piece, colbert and stewart unfortunately are the only ones that report the events in truth all the other news outlets are biased and always stay away from the messages. here they let them speak and expose the news. sometimes.

since when did comments about this interview become the forum of a chat room?next thing you will be arguing about is south park.is cartman fat or big boned?but that is ok this comment you can find some where in the middle of the page,posted 11:42 CST

"Female-form person"? Not sure if it's a snark (batteries low on snark detector). I don't want to be too critical of this, since I love new word usages, but it sounds and reads like a line of code from an object-oriented programming language: "female.form.person == string.value.woman."

I didn't realize what an ass this guy Colbert is - cruel, cynical, shallow, and really not very funny despite those supportive dutiful laughs in the background. Honest humor, including that involving self-deprecation, is healthy, wise and indicative of strength. But his stuff here, whatever it is, is simply smart-assed, without insight or other redeeming features; it is, in brief, childishly destructive, nothing more, and again, not funny, even unworthy of titters, much less laughter.

The stupid shall be punished! Jason was carrying an Ipad in the first part of the video and Ketchup was wearing a pair of glasses that probably cost several hundred dollars. Then they said they were chosen to represent their movement? If they were the best I would hat to see the worst. They were well spoken, but it was obvious they could not do anything to make money. Why do you think they were there?

i saw only part one of Colbert. He is funny and quick witted, but in the end I found him obnoxious. It is as if it is too much for him to handle direct engagement and communication with OWS representatives. I would not go out on a second date with him.

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.
In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. The upper class held around 30%. The middle and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A massive redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

I just have to wonder what these kids will do when mommy stops paying for the cell phone. REALLY??? And what happens when there is no income to support this "Utopia".... Anybody recognize the fall of the Soviet Empire... Or even Greece?? These are sad children that grew up without responsibility or a daddy to teach them the honor that comes from a hard days work. This is so sad. Thank you Mr. Colbert for giving us the most enlightening view yet of these misguided children.

I just have to wonder what these kids will do when mommy stops paying for the cell phone. REALLY??? And what happens when there is no income to support this "Utopia".... Anybody recognize the fall of the Soviet Empire... Or even Greece?? These are sad children that grew up without responsibility or a daddy to teach them the honor that comes from a hard days work. This is so sad. Thank you Mr. Colbert for giving us the most enlightening view yet of these misguided children.

Colbert is of the 1%. Remember he and Jon STewart a short while ago were leading an effort to bring more "civil discourse" onto the political scene. Now that movement made no sense, given the war on working class people. Brushing aside the humor, you got the feeling that there's a bit of resentment that yes, we're doing just fine without you Colbert.

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.
In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. The upper class held around 30%. The middle and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A massive redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

I understand where your points are coming from; however, i disagree with what the protestors are doing. The protests have attracted violence and drugs. People discredit the protests because of them. When you claim, "they're (the violent and the people who use/ deal drugs) not a part of this movement ," people don't believe you. And the truth of the matter is you can't disassociate yourselves from them. Also, the message you are trying to say is very, very, general. "Corporate Greed?" Give me a break. Are you asking for a communist/ socialist society? Peter Singer, the Animal Right's activist said, "Equality is a moral Idea, Not an assertion of fact," because if we actually compared people based on certain attributes, i.e. intelligence or rarity of a certain skill, then we wouldn't be complaining. Lets face it. A regular joe say an IQ of 98 cannot run a bank or anything like the CEO's of corporations. So we pay them more because they have a rare talent of running corporations well. A ten year old could serve coffe at starbucks. But they couldnt run a multi billion dollar company. Life's not fair. I know it is. We just have to deal with it.

Be on the lookout for commercial brainwash plots on TV. They are written into nearly every scene of nearly every show. Most cater to network sponsors, coorporate partners, and parent companies. Especially commercial health care. In particular, high profit pharmaceuticals and excessive medical testing. These plugs are countless, calculated, and VERY well written. They have commercial brainwashing down to a science. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Get off the couch and take care of your own body the way nature intended. There is no substitute. If you must see a doctor, then DEMAND that he/she give you more than 5 minutes of their undivided attention. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Be prepared with written questions about your condition and get them answered one at a time. If they refuse, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe excessive medical testing, then ask if they personally own the equipment or if they are paid a commission for each test. If they find nothing new or signifigant, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe a pharmaceutical, then ask for a generic. Better yet, concider a change in lifestyle or simple tolerance. If they still recommend the name brand pharmaceutical, then ask about any financial ties or conflict of interest. If they get offended, then dispute their unreasonable charges and consider a new doctor. If you must drug away your sniffles, worries, jitters, aches, and pains, then at least do your homework. Be aware of the possible side-effects ahead of time. Don't be surprised to find yourself back a week or two later feeling worse. In which case, you should dispute their unreasonable charges. If you are diagnosed with another medical condition, then ask your doctor what he/she has done to rule out those possible side-effects. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't let any greedy doctor treat you like a number, make you wait an hour, or rush you out of their office. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't fall for this CRAP that doctors have no choice but to over-book their time or over-charge their patients because of a high overhead. ITS A LIE. YOUR DOCTOR IS MOST LIKELY A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE. The same goes for their bogus claim to over-test so many of their patients because they are afraid of missing something and being sued for it. THAT IS ANOTHER FLAT-OUT LIE. Afterall, if this were true, then it would only explain some of the unnecessary testing. NOT THE OBSCENE CHARGES. It also wouldn't explain their own financial ties directly to the manufacturers of said testing equipment. Thats right. Most doctors hold stock in the very same companies that produce that equipment. Its another conflict of interest. So don't fall for their CRAP. Demand their undivided attention and respect. Afterall, they took an oath. If you have the opportunity before being admitted, then check the record of your hospital. Check to see if they have been investigated or sued for providing unnecessary treatment, excessive medical testing, or fraudulent billing. Dozens have already been caught doing so. Do all of the above regardless of your coverage. Don't force your employer to cover the obscene and often fraudulent charges of a corrupt health care industry. By doing so, you make the problem worse. Keep your guard up when watching ANY talk show. These people are not your friends. They are not your advocates. They are paid actors hired to get your attention and your money. Some of them are also executive producers (Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil.). Nearly every word, smile, and stupid joke is rehearsed ahead of time. Including those which take place so often during what appear to be 'technical oversights' (Today Show. Even their stage hands are mixed in behind the scenes so that you can hear them laugh at every stupid joke.). Its all fake. Its all calculated. These people are not trying to make the world a happy place. They are trying to entertain you only because their marketing studies have shown that you are more likely to drop your guard and support their sponsors. Nearly every segment is about marketing some over-priced product or service. They will use any excuse to plug a gadget, fashion item, travel destonation, credit card, university, drug, medical test, surgical procedure, movie, TV show, book, magazine, song, website, ect. Almost all of it over-priced. Almost all of it resulting in higher profits for their sponsors, partners, and parent companies. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

I love this movement and the dialogue and energy that it creates, but to come to this site and see corporate media at the top of the page really speaks to naivety. Allow the corporate media to define you at your own peril. I sincerely believe that you need to be a bit more proactive in how you engage the public. I would love to help...........

Tom Brokaw co-opted the 99% slogan in his interview with Jon Stewart, declaring the 1% the soldiers who are coming home to a poor economy and a divided nation. Brokaw's fixation with glorifying the military is nothing new. While all people offer praise for soldiers for their sacrifice, it is time to dispel the myth that the bulk of soldiers learn transferable skills while serving in the military. I spoke with an electrical engineer whose entire career has been serving the military in some capacity and he explained to me how the architecture that has been built in Iraq is shoddy and will not last and that the people in charge of approving multi-billion dollar contracts are not qualified to make those decisions. Let us not succumb to the journalistic white washing that Tom Brokaw has become so popular for. Let us not be afraid of the truth. Is active military duty really a good place to learn skills for everyday life? If so, how and why? Not to mention that Brokaw promotes the same tired corporatism, the marriage between private and public industry, to create "public service jobs." We do not need more marriages between industry and government to keep us busy. What we need is for people to be empowered to use resources in their communities to improve their social, spiritual and economic well being.

The corporate world has no moral. They are capable to use weaknesses, lies, humor, ignorance fear, hate, racism, violence anything available to them to promote their greed. The worst thing they do is they use false human rights abuse, even corps for political agenda. I think they are not only killers but they are merchant of corps. Everything is a raw material even the cherished goal humanity human rights respect is used by them as political offensive against anybody who opposes their cult of money.

My friends, Obama, unfortunately, have come to keep the machine working... His bosses want from him that George Bush didn´t complete yet.
Barack Obama is part of the 1 % who are against you and the rest of mankind.
For all those who believe that Obama wants a socialist nation... you are really fun people. Push altogether a political change onto humanize yourselves

The corporate world has no moral. They are capable to use weaknesses, lies, humor, ignorance fear, hate, racism, violence anything available to them to promote their greed. The worst thing they do is they use false human rights abuse, even corps for political agenda. I think they are not only killers but they are merchant of corps. Everything is a raw material even the cherished goal humanity human rights respect is used by them as political offensive against anybody who opposes their cult of money.

The corporate world has no moral. They are capable to use weaknesses, lies, humor, ignorance fear, hate, racism, violence anything available to them to promote their greed. The worst thing they do is they use false human rights abuse, even corps for political agenda. I think they are not only killers but they are merchant of corps. Everything is a raw material even the cherished goal humanity human rights respect is used by them as political offensive against anybody who opposes their cult of money.

Whether lobbyists work for a large organization, a private individual, or the general public, their goals and strategies are the same. First and foremost, lobbyists must be adept at the art of persuasion, which is the mainstay of their job. They must figure out how to sway politicians to vote on legislation in a way that favors the interest they represent. This means tailoring appeals to specific individuals as well as to group voting blocs, such as Southerners or pro-choicers. Lobbyists also occasionally lobby one another. When normally opposing groups find a common area of interest and can present a united front they are extremely effective. Lobbying can be direct or indirect. Direct lobbying means actually meeting with congressmen and providing them with information pertinent to a bill being voted on. The lobbyist imparts her information with the help of graphs, charts, polls, and reports that she has hunted up or created. Needless to say, this is usually information that the politician might not otherwise have access to, that casts the matter in a light favorable to the interest the lobbyist represents. Sometimes, lobbyists will even sit down and help a politician draft legislation that is advantageous for their interest. Maintaining good relations with politicians who can be relied on to support the lobbyist’s interest is key. While lobbyists and their employers cannot themselves make large campaign donations to politicians, they can, and do, raise money from other sources for reelection campaigns. To be successful at all of this, the lobbyist must be well-informed, persuasive, and self-confident. Personal charm doesn’t hurt either, and lobbyists will often do social things like host cocktail parties, which allow them to interact with politicians-and opponents-in a less formal atmosphere. Indirect lobbying, sometimes referred to as grassroots organizing, is a bit less glamorous. Grassroots lobbyists enlist the help of the community to influence politicians by writing, calling, or demonstrating on the organization’s behalf. This means long hours spent on the phone and writing letters, trying to rouse the community to get involved. These lobbyists also report to politicians about the concerns and reactions they have gotten from community members. Indirect lobbying is also done through the media. Grassroots lobbyists write articles for newspapers and magazines and appear on talk shows to generate interest in and awareness of their issues. Lobbyists tend to work long hours-between forty and eighty hours per week is normal, and when a bill is up for vote they will usually work through at least one night. But the least attractive part of being a lobbyist may be the profession’s less-than-spotless reputation. While most are undoubtedly scrupulous, some lobbyists have been known to grease a palm or two where persuasion falls short, and the rest must suffer the public’s mistrust. These honest lobbyists, who represent every segment of society, take refuge in the knowledge that they are working to promote causes they believe in.

Whether lobbyists work for a large organization, a private individual, or the general public, their goals and strategies are the same. First and foremost, lobbyists must be adept at the art of persuasion, which is the mainstay of their job. They must figure out how to sway politicians to vote on legislation in a way that favors the interest they represent. This means tailoring appeals to specific individuals as well as to group voting blocs, such as Southerners or pro-choicers. Lobbyists also occasionally lobby one another. When normally opposing groups find a common area of interest and can present a united front they are extremely effective. Lobbying can be direct or indirect. Direct lobbying means actually meeting with congressmen and providing them with information pertinent to a bill being voted on. The lobbyist imparts her information with the help of graphs, charts, polls, and reports that she has hunted up or created. Needless to say, this is usually information that the politician might not otherwise have access to, that casts the matter in a light favorable to the interest the lobbyist represents. Sometimes, lobbyists will even sit down and help a politician draft legislation that is advantageous for their interest. Maintaining good relations with politicians who can be relied on to support the lobbyist’s interest is key. While lobbyists and their employers cannot themselves make large campaign donations to politicians, they can, and do, raise money from other sources for reelection campaigns. To be successful at all of this, the lobbyist must be well-informed, persuasive, and self-confident. Personal charm doesn’t hurt either, and lobbyists will often do social things like host cocktail parties, which allow them to interact with politicians-and opponents-in a less formal atmosphere. Indirect lobbying, sometimes referred to as grassroots organizing, is a bit less glamorous. Grassroots lobbyists enlist the help of the community to influence politicians by writing, calling, or demonstrating on the organization’s behalf. This means long hours spent on the phone and writing letters, trying to rouse the community to get involved. These lobbyists also report to politicians about the concerns and reactions they have gotten from community members. Indirect lobbying is also done through the media. Grassroots lobbyists write articles for newspapers and magazines and appear on talk shows to generate interest in and awareness of their issues. Lobbyists tend to work long hours-between forty and eighty hours per week is normal, and when a bill is up for vote they will usually work through at least one night. But the least attractive part of being a lobbyist may be the profession’s less-than-spotless reputation. While most are undoubtedly scrupulous, some lobbyists have been known to grease a palm or two where persuasion falls short, and the rest must suffer the public’s mistrust. These honest lobbyists, who represent every segment of society, take refuge in the knowledge that they are working to promote causes they believe in.

Colbert is a fucking genius, and he's been one of my favorites for a long time.

That being said, it bothers me what a piece like this does towards subverting and canonizing the movement. Think about it- we need people to keep getting involved, to keep waking up to the harsh reality that the 1% have put us in. We DON'T need our movement to be used as fodder for a corporate TV network's show that only lulls the public into passivity.

Colbert is a fucking genius, and he's been one of my favorites for a long time.

That being said, it bothers me what a piece like this does towards subverting and canonizing the movement. Think about it- we need people to keep getting involved, to keep waking up to the harsh reality that the 1% have put us in. We DON'T need our movement to be used as fodder for a corporate TV network's show that only lulls the public into passivity.

I barely tolerated part 1 and gave part 2 about 15 seconds of my time. It was enough to just skip over beginning, middle and end parts to see if this condescending and disingenuous idiot could change his tone or his facial expressions to anything resembling sincere or even respectful.
Stephen I find you essentially obnoxious, and actually just a waste of time, a distraction. I bet you were quite a handful too for your caretakers while growing up. Obviously you've got some more growing to do if you're thinking of advancing past a rather pitiful fixation with yourself as "wow, i'm the funniest boy in the room". But you aren't.

And I mean no disrespect whatever to those who find you useful, I guess one man's idiot is another's wise man. And anyone can change, you can, I can, and let's move forward.

lol, editing made both clips what they are. The money that Justin was offered in a handshake at the "end" pops up on the table 4 different times, it's right there in the thumbnail of the first clip now. It's like that episode of the Simpsons where an interview with Homer is spliced together to get the result desired but the clock in the background keeps jumping around.

One website will say "foiled" according to what side they are on. One site will say "OWNED" according to what side they are on. But all in all, the rich are going to make better slaves out of us tomorrow.

When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department you see criminals.

Our corruption dates back decades to when those who in trying to preserve slavery had to find new ways to preserve it and so created an advanced form of slavery.

only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom and choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.

How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.

our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.

In America the population has been transformed in two major voting groups but they only have one choice.

They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.

Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.

Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans themselves are realizing that they cannot sustain themselves under their current system of government.

Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??

Occupy Washington and demand that all government officials resign their posts.

We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.

mockery/satire character. He`s funny as hell, and I see deep inside, he is on OWS side. Famous people get spoofed, and they stood up in how the viewed the movement. Give it a rest and enjoy the compliment.

I'm amazed how OWS is seeking to "spin" this as positive for the movement. If the main argument is that his humor is deep and contorted and is actually seeking to promote the virtues of the GA - then you have failed at SPIN 101. He's broadcasting to the World not some University philosophy class. IT IS WHAT IT IS and that's how it will be received by the audience. Compare it to any other of his routines and you'll see that he went pretty far in outlining the childish nature of the GA and the fact that the main demographic are white hipsters who are most likely in debt for their education and the prime reason the first "demand" was forgiveness from school debt.

Good luck with your delusion, i'm sure the 420 will make it even more real.

I am not amused. Colbert is using the movement to line his and CC s corporate pockets. Another example of greed, but we have some how been duped into thinking that we must take his and Stewart's jokes as just play. Those at home watching those "hippies" at Occupy eat this up as proof, that this is a bunch of jobless ,skill-less deadbeats. Satire or not say it enough and it becomes real. That 's how the right works.
This is serious to the corporations. Make no mistake if this was on TV then it was APPROVED BY CORPORATE!
Take this off . Or is Colbert the new spokesman?

Prove it. Or is it then, all the profits from these episodes are going to the movement? What were the commercials that ran with the show?
He did buy influence, he got an interview and then mocked the the system of the group as well as the issue of hunger. Was there a part cut when Justin and Ketchup spoke out against the spread of conspicuous consumption? If he had genuine influence at the studio then he should show his 100% with use of the media in a more meaningful way.

Colbert is a fucking genius, and he's been one of my favorites for a long time.

That being said, it bothers me what a piece like this does towards subverting and canonizing the movement. Think about it- we need people to keep getting involved, to keep waking up to the harsh reality that the 1% have put us in. We DON'T need our movement to be used as fodder for a corporate TV network's show that only lulls the public into passivity.

I dont understand how it is appropriate to make levity of a situation involving hundreds of thousands of demonstrators whom have been assaulted, some nearly losing their life, for a cause. If Colbert was around for the civil rights movements, would he have dressed as a black faced man, jumping around in the rain, pretending to have no actual cause?

I find this tasteless and feel like it should be removed from this cite, limiting the amount of attention poor taste gets during this important time.

It is called satire. He is not making fun of the movement he is making fun of people who think they can buy the voices of the people and speak for them. I thought that was pretty obvious but sometimes satire can be misinterpreted.

I guess you are saying you don't have a sense of humor and you don't get the point of a satire. Colbert wasn't lying in this satire. He was showing how the greediest of the 1% act, and he is right on with it. How is that lying?

You think that all the folks laughing were laughing with the OWS duo, or do you believe they were laughing at them?
I didn't find it funny.
True I have never watched Colbert and don't know any of his other work, but still, the first video I ended up watching from beginning to end and I found him useless.
Does he ever stop with the bullshit and just act real?
I don't know. I am not familiar with him.

"Does he ever stop with the bullshit and just act real?" He is a PROFESSIONAL COMEDIAN.... a comedian or comic is a person who seeks to entertain an audience, primarily by making them laugh. This might be through jokes or amusing situations, or acting a fool, as in slapstick, or employing prop comedy. A comedian who addresses an audience directly is called a stand-up comic.

You keep showing that you DO NOT understand comedy and satire. It's fine if you don't find him funny or if you don't like him, but that doesn't change the fact the he is a COMEDIAN for a living and makes satires as part of his work.

Just the same, you may find the work of a particular painter displeasing to you, but does that mean they are not an artist, solely based on your personal taste?

Saying that what he does is bullshit further proves you do not understand comedy and satire..... or you plain just don't want to accept it.

I am a psychiatrist. There is a type of emotional response called reaction formation. It is the process of replacing one emotion with the opposite emotion, and is not typically seen as a 'mature' way of dealing with the original emotion.

Here, the comedian is desperately attempting to replace frustration, loss of hope, and anger with .........humor. This is an immature reaction.

I would caution the support of attempts at diminishing the seriousness of the revolution occurring around the world. OWS is Occupy Greece, OWS is Occupy Isreal, OWS is Occupy San Antonio. None of this is a laughing matter. The use of levity to try and avoid the unavoidable with become increasing useless in the coming weeks and months.

I totally disagree that using humor is an immature response. Comedians contribute to society in a big way, whether anyone agrees with their positions or not. They bring issues, serious issues, into the forefront and talk about them.... usually when most people are afraid to talk about those issues. They face those issues head on using humor, irony, cynicism, etc. They aren't afraid to bring those issues up like a lot of people are. They put those issues in front of our faces, so that we start to think about them or think about them in a different way and maybe try to process them and solve them. Humor is a great tool for this. Most people can relate to it, and if someone can get you laughing about a serious topic, then you tend to be more open to looking at that topic, seeing it in a different way, analyzing it, and maybe giving it more energy. They make you less insecure about thinking about and talking about issues. They (the good comedians) are genius in their approach.

When comedians use humor to bring issues to the forefront, they aren't doing so to minimalize the importance of those issues. Rather, they are talking about those issues in another way.... by using humor, so that their message reaches people.

SwissMiss, you need to get your head out of SteveColbert's ass. The OWS movement is here to stay. It isn't going anywhere. We already know about the system of enslavement and control. You've been found out. The Reptilian Agenda has been exposed!

Again (read below at my response to the other comment), I dont say humor is an immature response. Read my comment carefully. I say "Here, the comedian is desperately attempting to replace frustration, loss of hope, and anger with .........humor. This is an immature reaction".

While I find having these conversations very illuminating, I keep running into instances where folks are not taking the time to read comments closely, and instead react. I dont know what the cause of this is. Perhaps its because people are more quick to react/response than try to take the time to read and digest. This is a VERY basic and necessary skill to have in order to have informed and mature conversations.

If you would like to re-read my post and have a conversation regarding your opinion of my comment, I am happy to do that. But, I cant teach people how to read a paragraph and not add information that is not there. Sorry

"Again (read below at my response to the other comment), I dont say humor is an immature response. Read my comment carefully. I say "Here, the comedian is desperately attempting to replace frustration, loss of hope, and anger with .........humor. This is an immature reaction"."

"Here, the comedian is desperately attempting to replace frustration, loss of hope, and anger with .........humor. This is an immature reaction".

So, how is THAT (this particular satire) any different from what any other comedian does? Don't other comedians do the same thing..... use humor to talk about certain things and create satires to get their points across in a humorous way (or an attempt to be humorous)? THAT IS WHAT COMEDIANS DO. It's an art, an approach, a style.

So, your assessment that Colbert is being immature in this satire.... because of replacing frustration, anger, loss of hope, etc. with humor is completely inaccurate, IMO..... as I stated in my original response to your post.

Do you think this satire is any different than any other satire about a different topic?

I think the point, though, is that she disagrees with your above statement. Now, i think that another basic and necessary skill, vital for informed and mature conversations, is the ability to interpret peoples' responses. Or maybe you could ask for clarification, rather than flat out saying "you don't understand what i'm saying, read it again".

It's not funny.
Colbert is not doing what say George Carlin did, or Lenny Bruce, or Rick Shapiro, or Richard Pryor.
He's not funny.
It's hurtful.
He's making fun of nice people.
I didn't laugh.
I hated it.
He is not important.

Maybe you don't understand what he is saying. "He's making fun of nice people." It is a satire, of which the point is not to make fun of nice people. Carlin did the same thing.

Here's the meaning of satire, in case you don't know it....

"Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.
A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant"[2]—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.

Satire is nowadays found in many artistic forms of expression, including literature, plays, commentary, and media such as lyrics."

He wasn't making fun of nice people. He used satire to make his point. You don't have to like him to understand what he was doing.

On what basis have you concluded that Colbert's underlying emotional experience is that of "frustration, loss of hope, and anger"?

Secondly, assuming that Colbert's underlying emotional experience is indeed that of "frustration, loss of hope, and anger," by what precedent do you apply a diagnosis of reaction formation to his satirical showmanship?

Can there be any doubt that behind the absurdity of Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' was a very real frustration and anger with the attitudes of the rich towards the poor? Is 'A Modest Proposal' then an example of reaction formation, or "an immature reaction"?

Humor is often born of emotions other than happiness or mirth. Humor is often born directly of frustration and anger. The way in which you've applied this diagnosis, it seems as though 99% of what is considered humor could similarly be diagnosed as a reaction formation, or "an immature reaction". This strikes you as a reasonable diagnosis?

I could not disagree more. Humor can be very helpful in enduring, and satire is a form of humor. I don't think Colbert is using this to deal with his emotions, I think he (in these episodes) used it to a) entertain and b) showcase the morality, demeanor and approachability of two really cool occupiers.
In my opinion, showing the occupiers, with all of their individuality, quirkiness, good humor, intelligence, etc., is the best way to gain support for the movement and Stephen Colbert is doing, albeit in his own way, a good job of it.
I'd also like to add that, once again, in my opinion, it's okay to be a little bit loosey goosy about things now and then. Being overly focused to the point of rigidity can be off-putting and even intimidating.
I believe that this was good exposure for the Occupy Movement especially when, even as the Port of Oakland was shut down, the major news outlets are choosing to give minimal coverage.
Eugene, Oregon supports OWS!

Perhaps he should have had a scene where he pretends to get hit in the head with a tear gas can, nearly dies, loses consciousness for a few days and then walks out of the hospital with blood all over his face!!! Or even better, perhaps he should pretend like he is an old Greek man whose social security income has gone from 1,300 euros to about 300 euros in the matter of 2 years....then runs out in the street and gets sprayed in the eyes with tear gas...he could then have him speaking in all types of nonsensical Greek jiberish, crying about losing his home and his livelihood... That would ABSOLUTELY HYSTERICAL!!!!

"Perhaps he should have had a scene where he pretends to get hit in the head with a tear gas can, nearly dies, loses consciousness for a few days and then walks out of the hospital with blood all over his face!!!"

That wouldn't be satire. That would be representation of what actually happened..... because there would be no humor involved. Same as for your other examples. The element of humor is missing in your examples.

The videos ARE satire, because of his approach with which he showed what he thinks about the greedy 1%ers. HUMOR is the key here. Apparently, you don't understand humor.

Wow.... you're some psychiatrist. I think it us you who has issues to work out.

If this is "unavoidable" then I am glad I have prepared. MY America will not be turned into a socialist nation. It was not formed as such and I will do everything in my power to keep it from becoming such. I have worked too hard for what I have, and am proud of every thing I have accomplished. No one will take that from me. But I welcome them to try.

I think it is important for people to step back and have a good laugh at their own expense. The movement is very serious, but the participants don't always have to be. If something appears silly, you can relax and giggle about it without losing focus.

I agree. And since the protests have been non-violent (except for maybe a few individuals), the humor can be more easily accepted. The issues that are being protested are serious, but that doesn't mean we all have to be serious in taking them on. Humor helps to ease tensions and helps to be more comfortable with facing those issues and dealing with them (and perhaps keeping things non-violent)..... just as humor is a great tool for therapy. It has the same effect here.

i disagree. he's trying to show the dangers of a legitimate, well-meaning movement being co-opted by a private interest. In a society limited mostly to sensationalism, sex and humor, he did a pretty good job of bringing a otherwise bland yet serious topic into awareness through humor, which is arguably the best modality of bringing anything into awareness because it involves a positive emotional response.

you're right, the revolution is serious, but what are you accomplishing by worrying and retreating into fear or apathy.

I agree. Rather, it's a tool that brings about emotion.... typically a positive emotion/positive reaction. It's like a tool that is used to bring about fear in someone. The tool being used isn't the emotion. Rather, the fear that that tool creates is.

At no point in my post do I call humor an emotion. You called humor an emotion in your comment, not me. I said 'reaction formation is the process of replacing one emotion with the opposite'. Perhaps you would be more satisfied if I used the word 'happiness' in place of humor?

But, the reality of it is, I dont believe your response was aimed at clarifying definitions, as much as it was meant to be sensational and dismissive.

Another familiar process to psychiatrists is what is called avoidance. By fixating on non-existant part of my comment (i.e. me calling humor an emotion), you avoided whatever negative feelings you had in response to my comment.

Um.... yes, you did say humor is an emotion.... "There is a type of emotional response called reaction formation. It is the process of replacing one emotion with the opposite emotion, and is not typically seen as a 'mature' way of dealing with the original emotion.
Here, the comedian is desperately attempting to replace frustration, loss of hope, and anger with .........humor. This is an immature reaction."

By you saying reaction formation is the process of replacing one emotion with another and then saying Colbert was replacing anger, loss of hope, frustration with humor.... you are saying that humor is an emotion (getting from A to B in my explanation is basic logic).

Your whole original post is about how you think Colbert was being immature, by using humor.

You seem to lack the ability to analyze what you have said. And your "processes" have you spinning in circles.

Raising awareness through humor. Explain to me how that works exactly Bender........ seriously. I want to understand what you mean by raising awarness through humor.

Does it go something like this?...

1) I watch Colbert report
2) I see him dress as a destitute and carry a cardboard sign to the protest
3) I laugh at how he makes the people of OWS look like they are silly
4).... whats the next step Bender?

I actually saw it as he made the greedy 1% (those in the 1% who are greedy) look like fools..... showing how they act and what they do and how they want to control everything.... with money. Apparently, you don't get it. I wouldn't hire you if I needed a psychiatrist.

I love you too Swiss. I do. I think we need to agree to disagree about the intent. I figure because you come to this site you are at least interested in change. I think we can agree that we both feel that way.

These two are the best you have to present to the media, even if it's Colbert? Ketchup. She's "female-bodied." Jingle fingers. Everyday you further cement the looney-tunes image with the actual 99%. Keep up the good work.

1) Get the government to issue some currency (cash -- paper or reserves at the central bank -- reserves are government issued cash central bank deposits). Government issued cash is around 5% of the currency (money) supply. The government issued currency is put into circulation by the government simply spending it.

2) The rest (95%) of the currency is issued by the private banks. Each customer loan is a new bank deposit (i.e., new currency) and increases the currency (money) supply of the economy. Note that this newly created money (currency) is put into circulation by the borrower spending it. Most currency (about 95% America's currency supply) has been borrowed into existence and when bank customer pays the loan back that amount of currency is removed from circulation. The banking system cannot go backwards (fewer net loans) as time moves on because fewer net loans means fewer currency in circulation in the economy.

Accmulation of interest charges on outstanding loans means that the currency supply must constantly increase even if it means giving out lower quality loans. Think of it like a plane flying it must fly at some minimum speed or else the plane (the banking system) will crash (i.e., banking system collapse).

3) The bankers make dam sure that the common public does not understand how the monetary system works meaning that the private banks issue 95% of the currency. This is whole another topic how they do this.

4) The system works until real economic capacity of the economy grows and debts can be serviced and interest charges paid. Most of the time the economy oscillates between boom (growth) and bust (recession) because bust is needed to clear debts and start a new lending cycle.

5) Eventually, one of these cycles goes so deep that currency supply (and demand) falls so low that too many debts become un-serviceable. The recession becomes a depression now.

6) The bankers then have to decide how to "reset" the system. One way to reset the system is to let the depression takes its course. But of course this path is very chaotic because people lose jobs and may become violent. Once most debts are cleared lending can start again and the currency supply is replenished. Wars are a good way to get initial money (currency) into an economy after a depression to get demand going again. This is the great depression scenario.

7) Another way to "reset" the system is to get the government to print too much money and spend and destroy the currency and blame it on the government. This justifies issuance of a totally new currency (note that hyperinflation clears debts) and the lending cycle can start again. This is the Weimar scenario.

8) The banking system (as is) is setup to maximize the power and influence of the global bankers and NOT for the maximum general well being of people. By the way this is a global game. This is the only system around no matter what country you are in. The global banking cartel makes sure that no competing systems are allowed to exist (so they might be copied and global bankers will lose power).

For more details on this stuff please read the following articles in order listed below:

Mr. Khan, I really enjoyed reading your explanation of the banking system. I've read alot of other posts with people talking about the monetary system and debt, but you have explained it so well here. I have copied all of your links to read!

In the mean time, one thing I have been trying to understand better is - how does war help to "reset" the system?

When you say the banking system is set up to maximize the power of the bankers - can this be controlled by stricter regulations by governments?

it is much simpler than you think. reset means debts are written off or paid with hyper inflated currency depending on how the reset happens.

banks should not be allowed to issue currency. the government should issue all new currency and spend it for public's benefit or just give it to the public.

How economy works is much much simpler than what talking heads say or what the profs teach or what wall street tells you. read my links and think and disseminate to other OWS people.

There should be:

1) No lender of last resort.
2) No government deposit insurance.
3) No government borrowing.
4) A government provided, risk-free, fiat storage and check clearing service that makes no loans and pays no interest.
5) outlaw fractional reserve banking (this is how private banks issue currency)

We the People of the United States of America on this date 01, November, 2011 ask the Congress of the United States to introduce Legislation for Constitutional amendments for the following grievances

The House of Representatives and the United States Senate will no longer add earmarks to any pending legislation or to vote themselves any pay raises unless that same advantage is given to all people of the United States.

The Congress will not receive any hard or soft monies from pacs, Lobbiests or other corporate Officials either directly or indirectly.

The Congress will pass an amendment to balance the Federal Budget.

Social Security and Medicare will be funded and streamlined to provide for the senior citizens and disabled without any disruption of benefits or amount of health care and amount of Social Security Income

Congress will pass legislation to Tax the wealthiest of Americans at an amount of no less than 35-40% Of their Gross income

Bank and Corporation Security Commission laws shall be revamped to protect the investors not the investment houses and the banks. Banking Laws will be totallty overhauled to stop unethical banking policies.

Congress shall pass legislation to place a cap on Corporation Executives salaries and benefits packages. And stricter SEC regulations of CEO activities.

Congress will pass legislation to stop the illegal inflow of immigrants from foreign nations and stricter laws to deport those who don’t follow the proper immigration processes of our nation.

Congress will pass a universal health care law which protects all citizens of the United States without regard to race, income, or nationality. Insurance companies cannot refuse any treatments found medically necessary by the patients doctors and Hospitals staffs. Failure to do so will be a Federal Felony with strict Prison time.

The Congress shall pass an amendment limiting the terms of office of all Government officials to 8 years to include the Supreme Court of the United States

I just don't get this "it won't amount to anything" crap lately when it clearly already has. I'll bet you're a Holocaust denier too, aren't you?
"Maybe if we all clap our hands and close our eyes and pay some cops to brutalise protesters the idea of corporate greed will go away".

You are an arrogant little pisser aren't you? I'll bet your daddy didn't hug you growing up. Most of the folks here are too gracious to spend any time on you. But, I get a huge chuckle from walking blow-jobs like you. Keep an eye out for a pair of red scissors next time you visit and introduce yourself.